A response to the National Water initiative from ... - Ninti One

A response to the National Waterinitiative from Nepabunna, Yarilena,Scotdesco and DavenportAboriginal settlementsMeryl PearceEileen WillisCarmel McCarthyFiona RyanBen WadhamReport362008

A response to the National WaterInitiative from Nepabunna, Yarilena,Scotdesco and DavenportAboriginal settlementsMeryl PearceEileen WillisCarmel McCarthyFiona RyanBen Wadham2008

Contributing author informationDr Meryl Pearce is a Senior lecturer in the School of Geography, Population and Environmental Management at FlindersUniversity. Her research focuses on water resource sustainability.Associate Professor Eileen Willis is a sociologist with research interests in Aboriginal health with a social determinantsfocus.Carmel McCarthy has broad ranging expertise in social, medical, and educational research.Fiona Ryan has participated in research projects related to Aboriginal issues and Aboriginal languages. She has a Mastersin Applied Linguistics from Adelaide University and has worked extensively in the area of adult education.Dr Ben Wadham is a senior lecturer in the School of Education, Flinders University. His research has focused onAboriginal reconciliation and Australian race relations from a governance and policy perspective.Desert Knowledge CRC Report Number 36Information contained in this publication may be copied or reproduced for study, research, information or educationalpurposes, subject to inclusion of an acknowledgement of the source.ISBN: 1 74158 085 4 (Print copy)ISBN: 1 74158 086 2 (Online copy)ISSN: 1832 6684CitationPearce M, Willis E, McCarthy C, Ryan F and Wadham B. 2008. A response to the National Water initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements, DKCRC Research Report 36. DesertKnowledge Cooperative Research Centre, Alice Springs.The Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre is an unincorporated joint venture with 28 partners whose missionis to develop and disseminate an understanding of sustainable living in remote desert environments, deliver enduringregional economies and livelihoods based on Desert Knowledge, and create the networks to market this knowledge in otherdesert lands.For additional information please contactDesert Knowledge CRCPublications OfficerPO Box 3971Alice Springs NT 0871AustraliaTelephone +61 8 8959 6000 Fax +61 8 8959 6048www.desertknowledgecrc.com.au© Desert Knowledge CRC 2008The work reported in this publication was supported by funding from the Australian Government Cooperative ResearchCentres Program through the Desert Knowledge CRC; the views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views ofDesert Knowledge CRC or its Participants.This research report was supported by the Commonwealth Department of Families, Community Services and IndigenousAffairs; CRC for Aboriginal Health; Desert Knowledge CRC and United Water; and the Aboriginal Affairs andReconciliation Division, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, South Australia. DPC-AARD does not necessarilyendorse the recommendations or conclusions of the report.II Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

ContentsAbbreviations/Acronyms IXAcknowledgements XExecutive summary 1Chapter one: Introduction 5Chapter two: Literature review: Utility stress and Aboriginal poverty 15Chapter three: Methods used in this study 23Chapter four: Cost of living at Nepabunna 35Chapter five: Water use at Nepabunna 47Chapter six: Cost of living at Yarilena and Scotdesco 65Chapter seven: Water use at Yarilena and Scotdesco 87Chapter eight: Cost of living at Davenport 105Chapter nine: Water use at Davenport 115Chapter ten: Conclusion and recommendations 127Recommendations arising from the study 137Closing statement 138References 139A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRCIII

Figures and boxesFigure 1.1: Location of Nepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements, South Australia 5Figure 4.1: Age composition of the Aboriginal population of Nepabunna. 36Figure 5.1: The water storage tank compound at Nepabunna, upgraded in 2006 49Figure 5.2: Average daily household water use over the one-year period and during a hot and cold season. 50Figure 5.3: An evaporative cooling system at a house in Nepabunna 51Figure 5.4: Schematic diagram showing how an evaporative cooler functions 52Figure 5.5: The build-up of salts on and below evaporative cooling filters at a house in Nepabunna 52Figure 5.6: Schematic diagram of Nepabunna’s dual reticulation system, with proposed rainwater harvestingextension 58Figure 5.7: Images of a dual flush toilet, water-efficient showerhead and kitchen aerator 60Figure 5.8: A proposed Brisbane water account 61Figure 5.9: The second page of the proposed Yarra Valley Water account 62Figure 7.1: Average daily household water use over the 20.5-month period 90Figure 7.2: Active and passive temperature control features on houses at Yarilena 91Figure 7.3: Schematic diagram of a rainwater tank 94Figure 7.4: The greywater holding lagoon and treatment plant at Yarilena 95Figure 7.5: The disused coastal soak at Yarilena 96Figure 7.6: The desalination plant, which houses the bore at Scotdesco 97Figure 7.7: An aerial view of a core cluster of buildings at Scotdesco 99Figure 7.8: The former ground-based rainwater harvesting catchment at Koonibba 100Figure 7.9: The Clivus Multrum® composting toilet 102Figure 8.1: Age composition of the Aboriginal population of Davenport 107Box 9.1: An excerpt from the SA Water website outlining their water pricing and billing system 116Figure 9.1: Cumulative water consumption (kL) monitored each Monday and Friday between 27 November and 15December 2006 117Box 9.2: An excerpt from one of the contingent valuation questionnaires answered by the focus group members 120Figure 9.2: Rainwater for potable use in one of two houses at Davenport where trials are being conducted 121Figure 9.3a: Recycled wastewater, treated to Class B irrigation water, is used in the greening of the Port AugustaForeshore Redevelopment zone 122Figure 9.3b: In contrast, Davenport settlement is in need of greening 122Figure 9.4: The proximity of Davenport settlement to the eastern Port Augusta Foreshore Redevelopment zone – adistance of less than 4 kilometres along a direct route 123VI Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

AppendicesAppendix 1: National framework of principles for delivering services to Indigenous Australians (National WaterInitiative, Attachment B) 147Appendix 2: Excerpts (clauses) from The National Water Initiative 149Appendix 3: Aboriginal reference group 154Appendix 4: Fact sheets 156Appendix 5: Flinders University ethics documentation given to participants 164Appendix 6: Nepabunna weekly menu 168Appendix 7: Nepabunna – Survey of food, health consumables and health hardware costs 169Appendix 8: Comparison of food and health consumables costs between Nepabunna and Adelaide 172Appendix 9: Nepabunna water use during two intensive periods in 2005 and 2006 173Appendix 10: Yarilena weekly menu 174Appendix 11: Yarilena - Survey of food, health consumables and health hardware costs 175Appendix 12: Comparison of food and health consumables costs between Yarilena and Adelaide 179Appendix 13: Scotdesco weekly menu 180Appendix 14: Scotdesco hypothetical family 1 – survey of food, health consumables and health hardware costs 181Appendix 15: Comparison of food and health consumables costs between Scotdesco and Adelaide 184Appendix 16: Distribution of population in Davenport, February 2007 185Appendix 17: Davenport weekly menu 186A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRCVII

VIII Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

AcknowledgementsOur sincere thanks to the following people who provided valuable funding, facilitated the researchand assisted with the compilation of this report.The authors are grateful to the Aboriginal people from Nepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco andDavenport settlements who participated in the focus groups and interviews from which we drewmuch of the rich detail of water use practices and cost of living in the settlements.We thank the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division, Department of the Premier andCabinet, South Australia; the Commonwealth Department of Families, Community Services andIndigenous Affairs; Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Aboriginal Health; Desert KnowledgeCRC and United Water for funding this study.We appreciate the time and contributions of the Aboriginal Reference Group: Alwin Chong(Aboriginal Health Council); Alwyn McKenzie, Sharon Meagher (Aboriginal Affairs andReconciliation Division, Department of the Premier and Cabinet), Jason Downes (Primary IndustryResearch South Australia), and John Chester, David Singh and Chris Rains (Aboriginal LandsTrust).The authors also express gratitude to the following people who assisted with comments on drafts,documents, data collection and/or the written report: Cecile Cutler, Louise O’Loughlin, NydaChhinh, Andrew Koerber, Jonathan Cudmore, Jonathan Sobels (Flinders University); KelvinJohnson (Nepabunna data collection); Paul Scott, Bronwyn Scott and Robert Larking (Scotdescodata collection); Brett Miller, Gwen Miller, Tammy Miller and Peter Miller (Yarilena datacollection); Sid Waye, Max Wichen, Ian Waye, Margaret McKenzie (Davenport data collection);Mark Tutton, Monica Adlington, Brian Hanson, Sharon Smith, John Kavanagh (Department ofFamilies, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs); Lee Morgan and Arthur Hume (AboriginalAffairs and Reconciliation Division, Department of the Premier and Cabinet); Simon Wurst (SAWater); Ronan Brereton, Guy Tuck (Parsons Brinckerhoff); Stephanie Rinck-Pfeiffer and DanielPartington (United Water).Special thanks are also extended to John and Elizabeth Tregenza who generously shared theirresearch tool with us.Desert Knowledge CRCA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Executive summaryAim of the study1.2.3.4.5.6.The focus of this study was:i.ii.iii.to conduct an economic appraisal of the water costs to householdersto identify appropriate strategies aimed at reducing water costs to householders whilesimultaneously promoting water conservation, greater water use efficiency, and thesustainability of water resourcesto engage the community in discussions around the levels of water service delivery thatthey would be willing to pay for.The study was motivated by the National Water Initiative (NWI) directive which requires moreefficient use of water with consideration of the economic and environmental sustainabilityof water supplies. The NWI stipulates consumption based pricing and a to move to ‘full costrecovery for all rural surface and groundwater based systems’, while recognising that, ‘somesmall community services will never be economically viable but need to be maintained to meetsocial and public health obligations’.While the NWI recognises that some settlements will never be economically viable,nonetheless it states that in such cases states agree to achieve ‘lower bound pricing’ in line withcommitments to the National Competition Policy (NCP).The NWI directive to move to ‘full cost recovery for all rural surface and groundwater basedsystems’ is motivated by the crisis in water availability in Australia and the realisation of theneed to develop and extend existing water conservation and sustainability measures.This project sought to provide a response from four Aboriginal settlements to the NWIdirectives to move to full cost recovery and to enhance conservation and sustainabilitymeasures. The impact on Aboriginal settlements of a move to user pays was examined throughanalysing the cost of living of in all four settlements with the aim of ascertaining capacity topay for water or for water efficient infrastructure.Considerable research has already been conducted in Australia that demonstrates that lowsocio-economic families are increasingly experiencing utility stress. Utility stress is definedas pressure on householders who experience difficulty paying their water, gas, electricity ortelephone accounts in any one year.Methodology7.The methodological difficulties in accurately estimating population, family composition,employment and income in remote Aboriginal settlements are well known. In this study datacollected by community researchers were supplemented with data from the ABS 2001 Censusand from the National Aboriginal Health Strategy R3 Project Impact Assessment 2005.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC

18.19.20.21.22.23.24.25.Household water use at Yarilena averages 208 L/p/d, with additional use of rainwater from twolarge tanks at each house. The greatest water expense at Yarilena (40% to 60% of the waterbill) is the result of leaking infrastructure, partly due to pressure incompatibilities between theinternal subterranean piping and that of the SA Water mains. These costs, which are depletingtheir resources, are paid out of Yarilena Trust funds. A builder in the settlement does much ofthe maintenance work.It is recommended that a third 18,925 L rainwater tank be installed at each house. While it willonly save around 5% of household water costs annually, it is a long-term sustainable saving. Itis recommended that the settlement apply for a grant to refurbish the irrigation system from theonsite Septic Tank Effluent Disposal (STED) pond, which has fallen in to disrepair.A move from SA Water onto the Ceduna-Koonibba pipeline will address the costs associatedwith leaking internal infrastructure. Once the internal leaks are addressed the settlement hasthe capacity to meet household water costs by maintaining their current internal paymentarrangements. However, the unit cost of water will be marginally more and a CommunityService Obligation (CSO) subsidy will not be available.Three hypothetical families were examined at Scotdesco: two adults on CDEP; three adultson CDEP and one adult on CDEP. No children were added to any hypothetical family orhousehold. Income for two adults is $507.22; income for a household of three adults was$764.73; and income for the single adult was $254.91. The cost of living for the familycomprising two adults was $474.65 (93.5%); the cost of living for the three-adult householdwas $627.70 (82%); and the cost of living for the single adult was $331.63 (130.2%).Households pay $5 per week for water for the primary household member and $10 for anyadditional householders or family members. Water costs account for 3.0%, 3.3% and 2.0% ofincome respectively.The settlement-derived income (from water charges) is used to supplement a FACSIAmunicipal services grant of $134,000 per year. The grant covers water services, rubbishcollection, dust suppression, dog health and other environmental health services.The ability to self-fund future large-scale water infrastructure is beyond the capacity of theseindividuals and their families. SA Water estimates that it costs around $25/kL to sustain thesettlement water supply. This is partly attributable to the high reverse osmosis maintenancecosts. The frequency of reverse osmosis membrane replacement is due, in part, to the poorregional groundwater quality.The outlay for reverse osmosis maintenance appears unsustainable. The costs are presentlycovered by the municipal services grant, although the excessive water costs means a lowerproportion of the funds are available for other environmental health services. In future,monies collected from householders for water will need to be ‘amassed’ for future capital andmaintenance expenditure.The hypothetical family at Davenport was identified as two adults, both unemployed andone child under the age of 13. The cost of living was calculated to be $496.60, or 104.1%of the total weekly income of $476.82. This is 16.8% below the poverty index (of $557.13).Householders pay $15 per week for their water.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC

26.27.28.Water use at Davenport is dichotomous, with a number of householders showing water efficientconsumption and others excessive use. Ideally each household should receive an individual billfrom SA Water; however, an accurate audit of water use at the household level was hinderedby faulty meters and connections. A drop in water use between the winter and summer of 2007was attributed to the mending of leaks. Any infrastructure repairs are dealt with, in the firstinstance, by the local municipal services officer, with plumbers employed as needed and formajor work.It is recommended that an audit of settlement infrastructure and meters be conducted by SAWater to ascertain the extent of the need to repair infrastructure. SA Water is under contract toAARD to attend to repairs.Legal issues governing the access of utility providers to Aboriginal land need to be resolvedbefore the federal or state governments withdraw settlement-based funding for municipalservices. In addition, the issue of access to utility subsidies needs to be resolved for Aboriginalpeople living on settlements where they are not landowners or landlords.Desert Knowledge CRCA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Chapter one: IntroductionContext and study objectivesThis report examines the possible impact of the National Water Initiative (NWI) on four Aboriginalsettlements in South Australia, namely Nepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport (Figure1.1). Earlier findings by Willis et al. (2004), which examined water service delivery in discreteAboriginal settlements in South Australia during 2002–2003, highlighted the concerns of a numberof settlements about the possible introduction of user pays tariffs for water services. Given theevidence of the relationship between health and socio-economic status (Morrissey 2003) and theimportance of water to health (Bailie et al. 2004), the study found that any move to a full userpays system should be approached with caution. For example, Willis et al. (2004) recommendedthat strategies to encourage greater water use efficiency needed to be explored before a user payssystem was imposed on settlements that did not pay for water, or that paid a minimal amount. Inaddition, the same study found that there was scope for more efficient use of water resources insome regional Aboriginal settlements.Figure 1.1: Location of Nepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements, South AustraliaA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC

Action 3 of the ‘Doing It Right Policy’ by the Department for Aboriginal Affairs andReconciliation 2003 (DAARE) states that the South Australian Government is committed ‘tofinding better ways of delivering current services and ensuring existing resources are targeted aseffectively as possible’. This study aims to support DAARE’s commitment to implement this policywith Aboriginal settlements. Failure to incorporate Aboriginal interests through recognition andparticipation has, in the past, led to criticism of the Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG)reforms (Altman and Cochrane 2003). This study aims to bring Aboriginal interests to the fore sothat they can be considered in policy formulation by appropriate government agencies.The study objectives are:i.ii.iii.to conduct an economic appraisal of the water costs to householdersto identify appropriate strategies aimed at reducing water costs to householders whilesimultaneously promoting water conservation, greater water use efficiency, and thesustainability of water resourcesto engage the settlements in discussions about their willingness to pay for theimplementation of water saving or water sustaining technologies.The report is organised into ten chapters. Chapter two provides a literature review on poverty andutility stress and the appropriate methodologies to be used in measuring poverty in Aboriginalsettlements. Chapter three outlines the methods used in this study: contingent valuation and the costof living analysis. Chapters four through to nine deal with the individual settlements: Nepabunna(Chapters four and five), Yarilena and Scotdesco (Chapters six and seven), and Davenport(Chapters eight and nine). Chapter ten presents a summary of the research findings, conclusionsand overall recommendations.The National Water Initiative (NWI)This project aims to provide an Aboriginal response to the NWI, thus the following discussionoutlines those aspects of the NWI that are relevant to remote Aboriginal settlements. In 1994COAG released its Water Reform Framework which ‘recognised that better management ofAustralia’s water resources is a national priority’ (COAG 2005). During the 1990s, variousjurisdictions responded to the COAG framework and instigated appropriate reforms. The WaterReform Framework provided the basis for the implementation of the NWI Agreement signed on25 June 2004. The deadline for the implementation of the NWI legislation is 2010, although someintermediate reform deadlines occurred in 2005 and 2006 (COAG 2005). An underlying themethroughout the NWI is the sustainable use of water – being careful how water is used now so thatfuture generations may enjoy the same (or better) quality and quantity of water as we do.An important component of the NWI in relation to domestic water supply is the commitment to theprinciple of user pays. In short, the NWI (Clause 65 ) stipulates consumption-based pricing, fullcost recovery, and consistency in pricing policies across sectors and jurisdictions. While perverseor unintended pricing outcomes are to be avoided and it is acknowledged that some uneconomicalservices might need to be ‘maintained to meet social and public health obligations’, removal ofsubsidies (e.g. Community Service Obligations) and full cost recovery remain guiding principlesand objectives. In 2006 DAARE moved from a department to a division within Premier and Cabinet and is now the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division (AARD). This and subsequent relevant clauses of the NWI are reproduced in Appendix 2.Desert Knowledge CRCA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

The NWI recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ needs in relation to wateraccess and management through appropriate representation in planning processes and incorporationof Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander objectives in plans with appropriate strategies developedwherever possible (NWI Clause 53). To date the processes through which Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander rights and interests will be managed in implementing the NWI are yet to be resolved.The core elements of the NWI relate to the more efficient use of water, the economic viabilityof water services and the sustainable use of water resources with consideration of ecologicalsustainability. The release of the NWI raised the questions: In practical terms how will the NWIaffect discrete Aboriginal settlements in South Australia? and How can Aboriginal settlementsrespond to the NWI? For example, the possible introduction of a user pays system for water hassignificant implications for Aboriginal settlements, some of which do not pay for water use andexperience social and economic disadvantages that adversely affect the health of people living there.Before a user pays system for water can be introduced into Aboriginal settlements, residents must beengaged in the planning and decision-making process to ascertain whether or not Aboriginal peoplehave the capacity to pay for water, or even if they should, given their prior claims to land and waterrights. Policy makers will need to go beyond engaging Aboriginal settlements in the planning anddecision-making processes, to include discussions about the level of service Aboriginal settlementsmight be willing to pay for (cf. World Bank 1993; Kaliba et al. 2003).In relation to the delivery of services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, COAGprovided policy direction across all jurisdictions. In June 2004, in addition to signing the NWIAgreement, COAG agreed to a National Framework of Principles for Government Service Deliveryto Indigenous Australians (hereafter ‘the Framework’) reproduced in Appendix 1. The principlesare: sharing responsibility, harnessing the mainstream, streamlining service delivery, establishingtransparency and accountability, developing a learning framework, and focusing on priority areas.Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation in water service deliveryOne of the aims of the NWI Framework of Principles for Delivering Services to IndigenousAustralians (the Framework) is ‘to achieve better outcomes for Indigenous Australians’ in termsof improving delivery of services and enabling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australiansto move towards self-sufficiency (Appendix 1). The Lingiari Report (Lingiari Foundation 2002),however, raises concerns held by the Ngarrindjeri people in South Australia, the Karajarri peoplein Western Australia and Aboriginal peoples in New South Wales about their ability to decisivelyparticipate in the management of water resources, and asserts their right to good quality waterfor spiritual, cultural, social and economic uses (MacFarlane 2004). It is concerns such as thoseraised in MacFarlane (2004) that the Framework aims to address, as laid out in the sectionentitled ‘Sharing Responsibility’. Sharing responsibility means that the government would like toencourage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to participate in delivering and managingwater services, and through this participation build partnerships with Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander communities and together develop cooperative approaches to policy and service delivery.The government agencies, therefore, need to foster communication channels between people inAboriginal settlements and service providers so that all stakeholders can learn what arrangementsare working well and contribute to solutions.The ‘Harnessing the Mainstream’ section of the Framework indicates that professional providersof water and energy services should also supply Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander settlements.In the past some remote settlements were serviced by Aboriginal-specific providers. However,SA Water is the principal water service provider in SA and as such possesses a much higher levelA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC

of expertise, backup, and infrastructure compared with the small Aboriginal settlement-specificagency Aboriginal Affairs Reconciliation Division (AARD). Similarly, the professionalism ofthe private sector suppliers of electricity services lowers the risks and liabilities associated withproviding this service. The aim is to offer mainstream water services that are complementary toexisting arrangements and to reduce the bureaucracy associated with government provision of waterservices to isolated Aboriginal settlements.It would appear that at least some of the concerns raised by Altman and Cochrane (2003) regardingAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests and participation have been incorporated within theNWI. The NWI outlines a commitment to ‘Indigenous participation at all levels and a willingnessto engage with representatives, adopting flexible approaches and providing adequate resources tosupport capacity at the local and regional levels’. This is to be achieved through Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander representation in planning processes and the incorporation of Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander objectives in plans, with appropriate strategies developed wherever possible.The following section provides details of the likely impact of the NWI on discrete Aboriginalsettlements and thereby frames the research objectives.The responsibilities of water service providers in remote AboriginalsettlementsPart of the responsibility for efficient water use rests with the water service provider and part ofthe responsibility lies with the settlement. For example, part of Clause 64 (Appendix 2) of the NWIrequires the ‘efficient delivery of the required services’, which makes service providers responsiblefor ensuring that water is delivered ‘efficiently’. This might be interpreted as a duty of care to fixleaking pipes and take steps to identify and overcome inefficiencies in the water delivery serviceso as to minimise wastage. Service providers will also be bound by Clause 69 of the NWI whichrequires any new works or refurbishments to be ‘ecologically sustainable’ before they can beimplemented. In terms of remote settlements, this implies that service providers are not permittedto extract water from bores at a greater rate than the natural recharge rate of the groundwaterresources over a sustained period nor to install new bores where an aquifer is being dewatered.However, not all jurisdictions interpret this clause of the NWI in the same way.The requirement for full cost recovery of water services where practicableUnder the heading ‘Rural and Regional’, Clause 66(v) of the NWI states that states will agree to‘full cost recovery for all rural surface and groundwater based systems’, however, ‘some smallcommunity services will never be economically viable but need to be maintained to meet socialand public health obligations’. While the NWI recognises that some settlements will never beeconomically viable, it states nonetheless that in such cases states agree to achieve ‘lower boundpricing’ in line with commitments to the National Competition Policy (NCP). It is thereforepossible that some element of ‘lower bound’ costs may be introduced into settlements that currentlydo not pay for water. The legislation does, however, state that water pricing will be reviewed‘on a case-by-case basis’. Furthermore, the introduction or continuation of a Community ServiceObligation (CSO) is permitted. For example, NWI Clause 66 (v) Part c, states that ‘where fullcost recovery is unlikely to be achieved in the long term and a CSO is deemed necessary, the sizeof the subsidy is to be reported publicly’. The NWI does, however, add that ‘where practicable,jurisdictions to consider alternative management arrangements aimed at removing the need for anongoing CSO’. The CSO is an SA Water subsidy to ensure that people living in rural and remote regions pay the same price for water as those living in metropolitan Adelaide, regardlessof the cost of service delivery to the provider.Desert Knowledge CRCA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

The requirement for ecologically sustainable use of waterWith reference to the need for water use to be ecologically sustainable, there are qualifying phrasesthat include ‘where practical’ or ‘where feasible’. In terms of the NWI, it appears that Aboriginalsettlements will have to comply with the legislation and show efficient and sustainable water use(Clauses 64 and 69). Clause 82 (iii) part c of the NWI, however, makes allowance for externalenvironmental impacts such as prolonged drought or climate change that affect the availabilityof water resources. The settlement may suffer reduced access to water of acceptable quality andquantity as a result of these ‘environmental externalities’. These factors are beyond the influenceof the settlement, and must be recognised and built into water resource accounting systems thatmake allowances for changes in the amount of water that is available for settlements to use in asustainable way.Water entitlementsMuch of the NWI pertains to ‘water access entitlements’. Part of the reasoning behind the COAGWater Reform Framework and NWI is to provide a response to the development of water trading,and to make a distinction between land and water rights and water access entitlements. In theNWI, the sections dealing with water access entitlements mostly refer to aspects of water tradingwhich affect those parts of the Murray-Darling Basin where it is physically possible to trade water,rather than to water allocations in situations such as the Aboriginal settlements being studied. TheNWI comments on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander water rights in terms of an opportunityfor engagement in management processes, partial recognition of customary rights and native titlerights, and the necessity for legislation to be framed so it does not curtail cultural practices. Withreference to Water Plans, the latter part of Clause 52 states that ‘water plans will incorporateIndigenous social, spiritual and customary objectives and strategies for achieving these objectiveswherever they can be developed’.The requirement to operate under a catchment water management planThe consumptive use of water must be guided by a relevant water plan (NWI Clause 28). As a legalrequirement of the Natural Resource Management (NRM) Act 2004, the Arid Areas NRM Board(AA NRM Board) recently released a Water Management Plan that outlines how water resourcesare to be managed and used.The Catchment Water Management PlanThe CWMP will not alter the access to water resources that settlements currently enjoy, and it isnot intended to affect usual water use. It is designed to control ‘large scale works that could haveunacceptable impacts on water resources or other users’. Such works could include, for example,building a dam, or interfering with the flow of surface water in lakes or streams. Water useactivities that occur on a small scale might not require a permit but the same activity on a largerscale would require a permit, and other activities thought to affect water resources may also requirea permit. Even if a settlement does not engage in activities that require a permit, ‘all water users andmanagers within the region are bound by the general duty of care provisions within the legislation’.Furthermore, in terms of the ‘precautionary principle … best practice sustainable managementshould always be applied when dealing with water resources’ (SA Arid Lands NRM Board 2006,p.14). The CWMP aims to be consistent with the requirements of the NWI, the Aboriginal Heritage To assist water users the Alinytjara Wilurara NRM Board will work with the Department for Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation (DWLBC) to produce fact sheetsto inform people what will or will not require a permit. The purpose of introducing the permits is to ensure that the water resource use is sustainable, equitable, considersheritage and cultural values, and considers ecological functions.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC

Act 1998, and the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989. The CWMP recognisesthe importance of water to Aboriginal culture and aims to work with Aboriginal communities toidentify and protect water resource sites of cultural significance. The CWMP will be reviewedevery five years to incorporate new knowledge into policy and procedures.The area under the Arid Areas NRM Board is broadly divided into regions falling within the FarNorth Prescribed Wells Areas, as detailed in a Water Allocation Plan and the regions outside thePrescribed Wells Area, which fall under the Catchment Water Management Plan (CWMP). TheFar North Prescribed Wells Area essentially covers the parts of the north eastern South Australiathat fall within the Great Artesian Basin. In the Prescribed Wells Area current water use has tobe registered, and any new requests for water allocations require a licence and will be subjectto the regulations that govern water allocation. Outside of the Far North Prescribed Wells Area,the northern and western parts of South Australia form the South Australian Arid Lands (SAAL)region, which mostly comprises the north-east part of the state and the Alinytjara Wilurara (AW)NRM region. The AW NRM region covers most of the north-western part of the state extendingfrom the APY Lands, across to the Maralinga Tjarutja Lands and Unnamed Conservation Park tothe edge of the state waters (3 nautical miles out to sea).The CWMP recognises that in the SAAL region ‘there are few alternative water resources and allwater is important to those who depend on it’. For that reason one of the aims of the CWMP is to‘help water users broaden their understanding of water resources in their area and assist them tomake informed decisions about how resources need to be utilised and managed’. In accordancewith the NRM Act of 2004, all CWMPs must outline the limits to the amounts of water that canbe extracted in a way that takes into consideration environmental externalities such as prolongeddroughts or climate change or other environmental factors that might affect the availability of waterresources to a settlement (SAAL 2006).Assessment of the progress in achieving NWI objectives inSouth AustraliaAn assessment of the states’ progress in implementing the NWI reforms against the scheduleddeadlines was conducted by the National Water Commission in 2005 and released as the NationalCompetition Policy Assessment of Water Reform Progress Report (National Water Commission2006). The report states that South Australia’s progress towards its NWI commitments had been‘satisfactory’, but that there has been ‘no clear demonstration of consideration of Indigenous rightsduring the development of CWMPs’ (National Water Commission 2006, p. xix). However, the SANRM Boards were only proclaimed in July 2005 and are currently in the process of communityconsultation to develop ten-year strategic plans. In February 2005, the state government establishedan Aboriginal Statewide Advisory Committee to advise the NRM Council on, among other matters,Aboriginal engagement mechanisms for water resource management.Debates on Aboriginal water rightsNo discussion on the NWI and the possible move to full cost recovery can be undertaken withoutsome exploration of the issue of land (and water) rights. Increasingly, Aboriginal and local peoplehave sought to establish water rights. Public debate on climate change and monetarist governmentpolicy mechanisms such as privatising water assets are some of the forces driving change in wateruse practices and issues of equitable access to water.10 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Aboriginal water rights: the Australian contextA review of current literature related to Aboriginal water rights indicates that Aboriginal inclusionin discussions around water issues are centred on NRM rather than on water rights, although thereis some recognition of Aboriginal water rights in State Water Management Acts. Both NSW andQueensland recognise the rights and interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in theirwater statutes. Altman (2004, p. 30) regards the NSW Water Management Act 2000 as being themost comprehensive of all the state Acts in relation to Aboriginal interests, but even so it limits thewater rights of Aboriginal people to ‘the right to take and use water for domestic, personal and noncommercialcommunal purposes’. Elsewhere the Act states that ‘Aboriginal people must benefiteconomically, culturally and socially from the changes to how we use water’ without defining howthis might be done (Altman 2004).In keeping with this stated objective, the NSW Aboriginal Land Council negotiated with theDepartment of Land and Water Conservation in 2002 to provide an Aboriginal Water Trust fundedthrough consolidated revenue as one method to ensure that Aboriginal people and settlements willhave funds to help improve their water usage and efficiency. Upholding the notion of a water trust,Morgan et al. (2004, p. 71) state that ‘a water allocation should be available to each Indigenousnation to enable them to exercise their custodial responsibilities to care for the river system … Atthe same time there should be initiatives to encourage more efficient use of water’.In the Northern Territory there is no agreed method for incorporating Aboriginal cultural valuesinto water allocation decisions, but the lag in addressing Aboriginal peoples’ cultural requirementsis the subject of a project between CSIRO Sustainable Systems Division and Aboriginal peoplefrom Daly River (Jackson 2004). Heeding the notion of ‘cultural flow’ from the Murray-DarlingBasin Commission the project is looking at issues arising from the application of a westernscientific approach to resource allocation amongst stakeholders from diverse cultural backgrounds.The North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance (NAILSMA), in conjunctionwith the Northern Land Council’s Caring for Country unit, coordinates and addresses issues thatare common to the jurisdictions of Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia. Thesebodies offer coordination of community participation in resource management and the exercise ofcustomary rights combined with collaborative research and partnerships with Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal organisations.In response to the report on water property rights submitted to COAG by the NRM MinisterialCouncil, Altman and Cochrane (2003) state that Aboriginal people must be considered in waterproperty rights discussions and their perspective understood, valued and integrated because:• The framework being advocated is based on ‘security of tenure, transferability and clarity ofspecification’ which creates enormous uncertainty from the Indigenous perspective.• The poor economic status of Aboriginal people is partly a result of alienation of theirancestors’ property rights and resources (including water).• Aboriginal people have title to almost 20% of Australian land including water catchmentareas so their potential water property rights are large and cannot be ignored.In commenting on these provisions Altman and Cochrane (2003, p.2) state that ‘any proposalsto create new property rights in water as proposed by COAG, or in fisheries or wildlife, mustrecognise customary rights because these are overlapping property interests in such resources’.However, to date there appears to be a reluctance to acknowledge Aboriginal water rights. Thisis partially due to the greater significance western culture places on land over water, treatingland as a fixed, tradeable commodity and water as a less clearly defined commodity (LangtonA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 11

2002). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander approaches to the management of land and/or waterresources do not differentiate land from water. Both are seen as components of ‘country’ (LingiariFoundation 2002). In the western system of property rights governments commodify water asproperty and resources in water, such as fish, as ‘fishing property rights’ (Altman 2004). Usingthe concept of the ‘hybrid economy’ Altman (2004) suggests that careful consideration of howthe customary aspects of a hybrid economy will interact with the wider commercial water marketis needed, otherwise customary use will not be utilised efficiently. Also, if commercial uses ofwater impair customary use then Aboriginal people could have legal recourse to defend native titleinterests. In an attempt to address the uncertainty of how future Water Acts may work he suggestedthat COAG acknowledge and explicitly recognise the potential impact of native title on waterproperty rights, possibly including the development of a national approach to native title rights inwater. Native title is alluded to in Clause 53 of the NWI where it states that:Water planning processes will take account of the possible existence of native titlerights to water in the catchment or aquifer area. The Parties note that plans may needto allocate water to native title holders following the recognition of native title rights inwater under the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993.While MacFarlane (2004) is of the opinion that the NWI intends that Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander people be included in the water planning process, and that the water plans incorporateAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social, spiritual and customary objectives, nevertheless hebelieves their status or power to influence remains unclear. The NWI assigns the responsibilityfor involving Aboriginal people in discussions and actions regarding water management and waterrights to each state jurisdiction. Within the Murray-Darling Basin there have been a number ofreports and studies on natural resource management that have sought the views of Aboriginalpeople, such as contributions to the Living Murray Initiative from the Murray-Darling Basin’sIndigenous Nations (Forward NRM and Arilla Aboriginal Training and Development 2003; Morganet al. 2004). The Forward NRM scoping study identified that Aboriginal people see their ownnatural resource management issues in competition with government interests. Further, the formalmeeting structures proposed by government make it difficult for Aboriginal people to express theirviews or be heard, so that although it appears that there are opportunities to participate in decisionmaking, the processes remain problematic.To address some of these barriers Forward NRM and Arilla Aboriginal Training and Development(2003) propose a range of communication strategies to encourage Aboriginal involvement. Theseinclude agency representatives visiting settlements: using simple language and pictures of keyconcepts to convey information: distributing newsletters and advertising meetings on local andAboriginal media; allowing time to build trust; providing funds for Aboriginal leaders to attendmeetings whose dates and times fit around the needs of the Aboriginal representatives; providingresources for Aboriginal people to hold their own forums on the issues before meeting withgovernment agency representatives; and establishing an Aboriginal reference group to help shapequestions and formats for meetings, endorse methods of research, provide input, and monitoroutcomes of Aboriginal and government collaboration.Commenting on these approaches, MacFarlane (2004) noted that reports which outline Aboriginalinterests in water are all clearly directed towards ‘restoring the original values of the water sourceand its surrounding landscape’ through notions such as ‘customary flow’ but that there is a gapbetween the perception and the reality of Aboriginal involvement in decision-making processes.Like Altman, he recommends the adoption of certain principles to ensure consistency of approachto Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander involvement in NRM decision making, stating that there12 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

is an opportunity to take a more holistic approach that could benefit both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal interests. This includes a holistic management style that aligns with the Aboriginalperspective of an interdependent whole environment, and that deals with the social and economicaspirations of Aboriginal people. The NSW Aboriginal Water Trust and water allocation rights areexamples of this that could be considered more broadly.Indigenous water rights: the international contextMorgan et al. (2004) state that Australian state and territory water laws are increasingly beingguided by international law. Lombardi (2004) discusses how the treatment of American Indianinterests in water may be applicable to the native title system in Australia. They cite the case ofWinters v. United States, which became a foundation of early Native American water law. Thejudgment allowed the establishment of farms within the reservation of Fort Belknap and the NativeAmericans were entitled to enough water to support farming from the nearby river. The water rightsof the Indigenous people were found to be prior to the rights of the white farmers who establishedfarms after them, and so the Native Americans won first rights to the river water. According toLombardi, Native Americans were able to change their use of water and to enter water marketsonce their rights had been established. Lombardi states that it is possible for similar agreements toapply in limited cases to Aboriginal people in Australia. Beneficial uses of water such as fishing,domestic or household use, stock watering, navigation and spiritual and cultural uses have beenrecognised in American law and are also being suggested to exist in the Australian context (Yuand Yu 1999; Lingiari Foundation 2002; Altman and Cochrane 2003; Altman 2004; Jackson 2006;MacFarlane 2004; Morgan et al. 2004).In writing about international human rights to water, Hammer (2004) states that consideration ofthe water rights of Indigenous people forms a bridge between the human right to water, controlover water as a resource, and water in the context of the whole environment. This approach enablesa more collective view towards water issues, so that different understandings of property, and themanner in which one can possess or hold territory, can be discussed. Whilst water ignores arbitraryhuman boundaries, the discussion of a basic human right to water is made more meaningful forparticipants and policy makers by the demonstration of ‘some form of link to the water source,either at a cultural level or from an understanding of the basic needs’ (Hammer 2004, p.151). ConclusionThis study reports on projects with four Aboriginal settlements from 2005 to 2007 with a focuson exploring sustainable water use and service delivery that would assist them to meet NWIrequirements and reduce the cost of water to households. In addition, this study provides anopportunity for Aboriginal people to be engaged in discussions about the provision of water to theirlands and to be part of the decision-making process, which is an aim of the NWI. The link between the environment and the recognition of the Indigenous peoples rights is acknowledged by the ILO Convention 169, the Human Rights Committee’sGeneral Comment to Article 27, the UN Draft Declaration, the 1992 Rio Declaration, the Convention on Bio Diversity, the Forest Principles and Agenda 21 (for fullreferences see Hammer 2004, p. 151).A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 13

14 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Chapter two: Literature review: Utility stress andAboriginal povertyIntroductionThe main objective of this study is to reduce or avoid additional water costs to Aboriginalcommunities while promoting sustainable water use in line with the objectives of the NationalWater Initiative. This chapter explores the various methodological debates occurring in studiesthat attempt to measure socio-economic status or the impact of utility stress on poverty, and it alsoexplores the difficulty of measuring population numbers and poverty in the Aboriginal context. Thechapter is divided into two main sections. The first section outlines recent research that examinesthe impact of utility stress on the wellbeing of low income families, primarily in South Australia.Utility stress is defined as the inability or difficulty in meeting the cost of water, electricity ortelephones. Section two outlines some of the debates surrounding the difficulty of obtainingreliable census data in Aboriginal communities. These data sets are important for determiningpopulation numbers and socio-economic status and also for calculating water use on a per capitabasis.Recent Australian studies of utility stress and povertyRecent studies of poverty in South Australia have explored the impact of increases in thecost of public utility prices to householders (Carson and Martin 2001; Lawrence 2002; SouthAustralian Council of Social Services 2002). The studies demonstrate a correlation between theincreasing price of essential services, low socio-economic status, and the declining health andwellbeing of people. These studies also pinpoint areas of socio-economic disadvantage and makerecommendations about how socio-economic status, poverty and relative deprivation ought to bemeasured (Carson and Martin 2001; South Australian Council of Social Services 2002).According to Carson and Martin (2001) South Australia has a higher percentage of its populationliving in the lowest income quintile than any other state, but when housing costs are taken intoaccount, poverty levels approach the national average, leaving Tasmania as the state with thehighest rates of poverty. Carson and Martin’s study examined shifts in household absolute povertyover the last decade, and found that the rate of relative deprivation was lower in South Australiathan in other states. This finding was not due to more equitable distribution of income acrossthe population, but to the fact that the state has fewer wealthier people per head of populationthan other states. Interestingly, they found that poverty rates differed across the state and did notconfirm a clear division between urban and rural communities as originally identified in Hendersonet al. (1970) and Henderson (1975). Carson and Martin (2001) found that there appeared to beintra-state migration as families or individuals searched for either work or cheaper housing. Inthese instances families may trade away other community services in their search for employmentor affordable housing. Recent studies on Aboriginal socio-economic status, wellbeing, and healthnote that social inequality is the defining factor in morbidity and mortality rates (Morrissey 2003)and, we would argue, is one of the key motivations for families moving between town, homelandand settlement.The Carson and Martin (2001) study also noted that some rural areas lack a critical size ofpopulation to enable local government to provide the range of services that are taken for grantedin urban areas. In these situations the opportunities are more limited for individuals to obtain anA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC15

income, to take part in leisure and recreational activities, to purchase essential household andpersonal items or to make a range of social contacts. Respondents in the Carson and Martin (2001)study reported additional costs of living in rural or remote regions where there were fewer services.Poor public transport means the cost of travel to purchase major items, clothes, or for specialisthealthcare services is an additional drain on household reserves, especially given recent historicallyhigh prices for petrol. As Carson and Martin note (2001, p. 63) individual social security paymentsdo not adequately compensate people living in under-resourced areas.Studies of utility stress and poverty in Aboriginal communitiesThe Anangu Pitjantjatjara Service Resource Management Project ‘Cost of Living Study’ (Tregenzaand Tregenza 1998) was prepared in response to a proposal from ATSIC and AARD to move tofull cost recovery for electricity on the APY Lands. Tregenza and Tregenza (1998) constructeda hypothetical Anangu family of two adults employed through CDEP, one pensioner and threechildren, two of whom were under 15 years of age, to estimate a typical weekly wage. Using dataderived from a range of communities across the APY Lands, they calculated that the maximum (notaverage) wage for a family employed through CDEP was $600 per week once community-baseddeductions for rent, funerals and other items were taken into account. While not all families cleared$600 per week, this amount was used to determine the impact of a move to user pays for electricityacross the APY Lands. In some instances families earning less than the hypothetical $600 per weekfigure went without food in the days prior to pension or CDEP payments.The $600 was used to explore the ability of the hypothetical family to purchase food and householditems linked to five of the nine ‘healthy living practices’ outlined in the Uwankara PalyanykuKanyintjaku (UKP) report (Nganampa Health Council, South Australian Health Commission andthe Aboriginal Health Organisation of SA 1987). These five practices are:• wash children and adults• wash clothes and bedding• buy, store and prepare healthy food• control dust• control temperature.Family weekly costs include: adequate food, determined in consultation with Nganampa Health anda nutritionist; cleaning agents linked to health; hardware such as brooms, mops, buckets, blankets,clothes and cooking utensils; health consumables such as cleaning agents and some medicinespurchased monthly, quarterly or yearly. In total the cost at the community stores on APY Landswas 23% higher than the cost for the same items in Alice Springs. The food basket consumed 85%or $500 of the family’s income. The authors note that few, if any, families on the APY Lands canafford to purchase white goods such as refrigerators or energy efficient appliances, both essentialpre-requisites for maintaining the health hardware of the house. Personal income for sufficientfood, health hardware, adequate storage, and energy efficient appliances are considered to beessential to enable people to make healthy choices. Therefore, increasing the cost of living throughuser pays for essential water and energy services would decrease the wellbeing of individuals,especially children. The study formed the basis for the Mai Wiru Regional Stores Policy(Nganampa Health Council, NPY Women’s Council, Anangu Pitjantjatjara and all CommunityCouncils on the APY Lands 2002) which argues for increased subsidies on the APY Lands as partof the COAG trials.16 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Criticisms of the Tregenza and Tregenza (1998) and similar studies are directed at the hypotheticalnature of the approach and the lack of precision about context (Altman et al. 2002). Altman et al.(2002) argue that assumptions are made about the costs of healthy food, not what people actuallydo purchase with their money, and no detail is provided about the geographical context of thegroups in the studies. This includes whether they live in a town, have a car, reside on an outstationor an excision. Clearly research needs to take account of these issues, as geography will impacton the ability of a group to use the customary economy along with welfare and market basedeconomies.Debates regarding the appropriate research measures todetermine povertyDebates within academic circles in Australia regarding the appropriate measures of socialdisadvantage are continuing (Travers and Richardson 1993a, 1993b). Carson and Martin (2001)point to an abiding reliance on a small range of measures of poverty, the most popular being theHenderson poverty scales. In their study Carson and Martin (2001), measure ‘absolute poverty’using the Henderson scales, as well as ‘social inequality’ or relative deprivation. Henderson set thepoverty line at 56.5% of seasonally adjusted average earnings in Australia for a standard familyof two parents and two children with the family head working, and 50.8% for the same familywith the head not working (Henderson 1975). The assumption underlying these differences is thatnon-working adults can use their non-working time to reduce family expenditure. The Hendersonmodel allows for comparisons between different family types based on size. Families with incomesbelow the poverty line are very poor, while those less than 20% above the poverty line are definedas ‘rather poor’. Both groups are defined as poor. The poverty benchmark is modified over time inline with increases in wages, the cost of living, and family size and is published on a quarterly basisby the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research.There is little agreement among researchers about the increase or decrease in poverty trends sinceHenderson’s first benchmark, possibly because different measures were used. In the view ofCarson and Martin (2001) the choice of equivalence scales reflects the researcher’s bias as wellas the weighting given to income, housing costs and the time period under investigation. One ofthe criticisms of the Henderson poverty line is that each year different data sets are used to updatethe absolute poverty line compared with those used to calculate rates of poverty. The HouseholdDisposable Income Per Capita (HDIPC), based on the national accounts (Carson and Martin 2001),is used to update the poverty line, while the poverty rate is set by using data from the IncomeDistribution Survey (IDS). The IDS has fewer measures than the HDIPC, leading to around a 15%difference between the two indexes (Carson and Martin 2001). Carson and Martin (2001) viewthese differences as purely academic, as the original poverty line was set sufficiently low to bedefined as poverty (Carson and Martin 2001).A further criticism levelled against the Henderson poverty line is that it does not take into accountin-kind transfers from the state to the family. These might include subsidies for transport costsor entertainment. Other transfers within the community include bartering or in-kind exchangessuch as the Local Exchange Trading Scheme (LETS), or in the case of Aboriginal communities,supplementing income through hunting and craft activities. Of further significance, Carson andMartin (2001) note that while the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty in the 1970s tookaccount of housing costs, family size, and labour force status as the primary factors influencingpoverty, contemporary changes in the labour market may mean that it is possible to be employed,A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 17

yet still live below the poverty line. This is especially so where people are employed on casualrates or in low paid industries or can only access part-time work; Aboriginal people employed onthe CDEP are a case in point.While it is possible to measure poverty in the Australian context and to talk of absolute poverty,various social security provisions ensure that most citizens need not starve and can gain access toadequate health care, education and housing. Therefore, relative poverty is a measure of differencesin income between population groups and is based on what a given society determines is the idealstandard of living at that time (Carson and Martin 2001). Similar to the Henderson poverty scales,research on relative poverty is fraught with debate about the use of equivalent measures. There ishowever, a growing body of research suggesting that the current health status of Aboriginal peoplein Australia is best explained by ‘relative deprivation’ rather than absolute poverty (Morrissey2003). Relative poverty adversely influences health, wellbeing and life chances and there isevidence that relative poverty is on the increase in Australia. This is attributed to factors such asmarket and wage de-regulation and taxation policy (Carson and Martin 2001).Carson and Martin (2001) used two indexes to measure spatial differences in poverty: the Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) and the Index of Economic Resource. SEIFA records thelocations of people with low income, low educational attainment, high unemployment and jobs inunskilled occupations. Low scores indicate more families are on low incomes in the area, with littletraining or access to resources. The Index of Economic Resources includes items such as income,rent, home ownership, dwelling size, number of cars, and family structure. High scores indicatemore families on high incomes. While there is considerable correlation between both indexes,neither provides information on how individual families cope with the lack of infrastructure orwhat further impact this has on family income. Debates about what measures should be used, orhow many items should be included in existing measures, do make a difference to outcomes. Themore items included in a scale, the less statistical support there is for inequality (Carson andMartin 2001).Geography is also a significant factor in both absolute and relative poverty. While Hendersonrecognised differences between urban and rural populations, more recent research suggests thatthe variation is best understood as across neighbourhoods (Carson and Martin 2001). For example,there are pockets within urban communities with high rates of poverty, sections of the farmingpopulation whose incomes have grown significantly over the last two decades, and some remotetowns where the majority of incomes are high. This latter group tends to be mining towns or areaswith high levels of primary production (Carson and Martin 2001). In settlements where a largegroup of the population are poor because of lack of access to employment there are fewer publicresources such as transport, health or education services, forcing people to either go without orpay more to obtain access to them. This locational disadvantage (Carson and Martin 2001) occurswhere people have to pay more to gain access to resources that would assist them to generate anincome.Clearly spatial and locational disadvantage are factors that explain poverty levels and the relativedeprivation of Aboriginal groups. In the measures used by Taylor (2004) outlined below, lack ofemployment opportunities and distance from the nearest administrative centre are two importantfactors to be taken into account when measuring Aboriginal poverty. For example, a simple measure of income will give a different result from a set of measures that includes education, access to services, and welfare provisions such asfree health care or transport.18 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Using ABS data in Aboriginal contextsIf there are problems measuring socio-economic status for the mainstream Australian populationthis situation is compounded for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities wherecultural factors raise questions about the accuracy of ABS data. Ethnographic research hasidentified several issues of concern, including the problem of accurately estimating populationnumbers for service provision, given that settlement populations may fluctuate as a result ofceremonies and funerals, sometimes increasing visitor populations by more than 100%. Evenwhere the ABS employs and trains Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander census collectors, as isthe case for the Indigenous Enumeration Strategy (IES), the issue goes beyond the difficulties ofaccurately estimating population numbers to include difficulties in estimating family, householdand dwelling size, numbers of nuclear families, single and married population numbers or thenumbers of ‘family’ members dependent on any one individual’s income. In a series of workingpapers published by the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Morphy (2004) arguesthat the problem is one of translation. Key terms and wording in the census documents, such asrelative, single, married, de facto, divorce, family and household dwelling, do not take account ofAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ways of understanding these terms. For example, a marriedwoman may not actually live with her husband, but in a single women’s camp or with her parents.Such a woman is not divorced – her contact with her husband may be shaped by his ability toprovide income or the preferences of the couple at that time.The key to appreciating the inaccuracies of ABS data for Aboriginal populations lies in differencesin kinship systems (Morphy 2004). Even the Indigenous Enumeration Strategy uses Anglo-Celtickinship terms that do not necessarily equate with Aboriginal kinship and it is presumptuous toassume that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander census collectors standardise their interpretationsto these difficulties (Morphy 2004). There is also an assumption built into the census that nuclearfamilies live in one household. As Morphy (2004) notes, Aboriginal people privilege lineage,not nuclear family, so that it is possible for individuals to be responsible for kin across multipledwellings or locations. She notes that kinship is one of the abiding characteristics of AboriginalAustralia even in settled areas, where populations are presumed to be more Anglo-Celtic thantraditionally orientated in their culture. As a consequence, Morphy argues that ABS census datafor all Australians should focus on the size, age distribution, gender composition, and dependencystructure of a household (extended household), rather than the nuclear family.Adding to the difficulties outlined above, where there are no local census collectors, on-thegroundestimates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations often do not equate withABS figures. The difficulty here appears to be insufficient personnel to administer the censuscollection in remote settlements along with a lack of awareness of population movements betweenoutstations and the home settlement (Martin et al. 2004). Taylor and Bell (2003) also argue thatAboriginal populations may not necessarily understand the census question about ‘usual residence’if at the time of the census they happen to have moved to a near-by town for health care, or otheradministrative reasons. Research by Martin et al. (2004) suggests that the population group mostoften omitted from the census is the under-30s. They are the most mobile and socially marginaland are often unemployed (Taylor 2004). The ABS makes up for this deficiency by doing anEstimated Resident Population (ERP) count of people who are presumed to be resident for up to 6months in any settlement. This allows for an 8% increase in the population across all age cohorts.The ERP is not a re-count at the settlement level, but is a statistical exercise employed to bring theAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population numbers into line with estimates. It is possible thatA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 19

the ERP estimate for a particular settlement is either an under- or over-estimation of population.It is not surprising that Aboriginal leaders and settlement administrators remain concerned aboutthe disparity between census data, ERP data and the reality of numbers resident in the settlements(Taylor 2004).Taylor and Bell (2003) have suggested an alternative population count based on a set of compositemeasures. These include school enrolment, clinic registers, Medicare data, birth and death registersand Centrelink data which include CDEP and Newstart payments. In selecting data sets they arguethe figures should be taken from these sources as close to the census date as possible, individualsmust be able to be uniquely identified and reporting must be centralised and standardised acrossthe state. Despite these caveats, in their re-count of settlement population numbers in Queenslandthey found anomalies in all five data sets, suggesting that to use any one set by itself would beunreliable. A more reliable estimate is obtained by drawing up an estimate based on a compositeof all five measures. Composite estimates of population taken from these databases indicate a 17%increase on ERP numbers for the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population,although this was not uniform, with some settlements having a 38% increase, while others wereas low as 4%. When Taylor and Bell (2003) added Community Housing and Infrastructure NeedsSurvey (CHINS) data to these estimates, increases in population rose by 50% in some instances.The differences in these estimates suggest that no one measure can be relied upon and evencomposite measures may under- or over-estimate population numbers in some cases. In order togo some way towards providing an answer to this question Taylor and Bell (2003) have dividedcommunities into three types: those that are remote, where the composite and the ERP are closelyaligned; communities that have been designated as Statistical Local Areas (SLAs) for some timewhere there is a strong alignment between ERP, census and composite data suggesting a morerigorous count; and communities near large rural towns where the ERP and composite data aresimilar in age cohort structure, but not in population estimates. For this last group they suggest asignificant diaspora of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people move between settlement andtown, making estimates of the population difficult.Measuring poverty in the Aboriginal contextThis report provides a profile of four settlements in terms of the potential impact of user paysfor essential services or the cost of improvements to current supplies of water. The difficulty ofpredicting population numbers and then accurately describing their demographic characteristicsaffects the utility of measures of poverty and relative deprivation for Aboriginal people.Besides debates about relative improvements in Aboriginal poverty, a number of researchers havereported on the difficulty of measuring socio-economic status for Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander populations, particularly those living in remote communities (Altman 2000; Taylor 2004).At first sight the task looks simple. Here is a bounded population group, usually isolated enoughto separate them out from other groups, the majority of whom are on CDEP or welfare payments.It would appear to be easy to measure income and assets. However, social security and CDEPpayments represent only one part of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ economic systems.Their welfare economy may be supplemented by a market economy as well as an economy basedon customary activities. Altman (2000) referred to these three sources as a hybrid economy.Making definitive statements on absolute or relative poverty is problematic when the economy iscomplex. As with population numbers, ABS data lack the capacity to capture the hybrid natureof Aboriginal economies (Altman 2004). While Centrelink, CDEP or formal employment can be20 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

ecorded, other income, goods and services linked to hidden economies, cash transfers, or thecustomary economy may remain hidden. For example, communities may organise hunting orfishing trips on a regular basis in order to supplement food supplies, or family groups may engagein art and craft activities outside the formal market economy. It is difficult in such cases to makeaccurate assessments of family or household incomes or to understand what lies behind statistics onhousehold or family size.Further to this, Taylor suggested that in remote Aboriginal communities the economy ischaracterised by seasonally and culturally determined modes of accumulation and disbursementthat differ from the way the economy operates in many non-Aboriginal communities. As he notes,ABS data on income are collected at a particular point in time when respondents are asked toindicate their ‘usual income’ (Taylor 2004, p. 55). This figure is then used to calculate annualincome. What this approach fails to take into account is differences across the year in weekly orfortnightly income, the result of seasonal work, or, for example, delays in procuring grants forcommunity-based projects. Nor does the census take into account how income is dispersed. Inaddition, some unemployed individuals may have high cultural status, which assures them incomeand in-kind support from employed family members. Family groups may include second and thirdwives in paid employment, while the first wife and husband remain unemployed, making it difficultto assess the extent of their reliance on welfare payments. It is also possible that combined familyor household income is not an accurate estimate of what is available for the purchase of foodor the payment of utility costs in any one household. Such assumptions presume that householdexpenditure is dealt with by the pooling of finances.Generalising findings from this study to other AboriginalcommunitiesGiven the high degree of challenge levelled at ABS data collected on Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander demographic information, a question must be raised about how much the findingshere can be generalised to other communities. What the ABS data do indicate is that Aboriginalpopulations living in settlements, even when they are close to larger rural towns, have higher ratesof disadvantage in terms of income and employment than town-based Aboriginal populations ornon-Aboriginal populations. This appears to be the case even when the settlement is within walkingdistance of a town, as is the case with the town camps in Alice Springs, Davenport in Port Augustaand Umoona in Coober Pedy. Sanders (2004) found that town campers tend to have demographiccharacteristics more in common with Aboriginal populations in remote areas. He suggests that thisis probably because these fringe communities are made up of groups who have strong links withmore remote communities and that there is a high degree of mobility between the two. In the caseof settlements such as Davenport, they are havens from the harsher racist realities of town life.Decisions to move between town and fringe settlements may also be a simple matter of cheaperrent and overhead costs; water and electricity being two major considerations. Given these points,one can argue that Aboriginal settlements close to towns should be treated in a similar way to moreremote settlements in terms of the assistance provided to meet the costs of water and electricity.ABS data can be supplemented with additional data drawn from settlement-generated sources.Taylor (2004) makes the point that settlement-generated data contribute to capacity building withinthe group, especially where the local people collect the data. Data collection should be kept toa minimum and follow the logic of the group’s way of organising kinship relations, households,and income distribution. This means questions dealing with family and kinship, usual residence,A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 21

household size and employment ought to reflect cultural and labour market realities. In his studyof the Thamarrurr region, Taylor (2004) employed senior men and women from the various formalorganisations such as the Community Council and leaders of the various clans to perform thecensus count. These data were then checked against administrative records held by the ThamarrurrHousing Office (Taylor 2004).In their analysis of the 2001 Census Martin et al. 2004) suggested that questions about residenceshould make provision for absent family members by asking who usually lives there, but mightbe absent for reasons of sickness, sorry business, sports carnivals or hunting and fishing. Peopleshould be asked their address in general terms, rather than specific house or street names andnumbers. This allows those who might move from dwelling to dwelling to be captured in thesettlement population count. Finally, they caution against complex forms, suggesting that all itemsshould be in plain English, on a single form and deal with only the most important census items.Clearly these items need to be compatible with other mainstream census data so that comparisonscan be made with other population groups.ConclusionThis chapter has explored emerging literature about the impact of utility prices on householdpoverty and some of the difficulties with providing reliable demographic data for studies that focuson Aboriginal people living in remote areas. This discussion forms the backdrop to Chapter threewhere the methodologies used in this study are outlined.22 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Chapter three: Methods used in this studyIntroductionThis project focuses on strategies that aim to reduce the potential adverse impacts of the NWIon Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and enhance community wellbeing. Thisinvolves identifying strategies that are economically feasible and environmentally sustainable foreach settlement in order to mitigate or reduce the increased cost of water to householders arisingfrom the reform initiatives. The specific objectives include:• an economic appraisal of water costs to householders in each settlement• identification of appropriate low-cost strategies aimed at reducing service delivery costs toindividual householders while simultaneously promoting water conservation, greater wateruse efficiency, and sustainability of water resources• engaging the community in discussions on the levels of water service delivery that theywould be willing to pay for where Aboriginal communities currently have no formal waterservice provider or where the community is not satisfied with its current water supply.In order to meet these objectives a mixed methods approach was employed in the study, using bothqualitative and quantitative design. Qualitative methods included focus group discussions with thecommunities (Willis et al. 2004) and a contingent valuation exercise at Nepabunna and Davenport.Contingent valuation is a qualitative approach to community decision making around capacity orwillingness to pay, in this case, for water. Quantitative data included the cost of living analysis(after Tregenza and Tregenza 1998) and water meter readings. The cost of living analysis providedlocal quantitative data on absolute and relative poverty and allowed a judgement to be made on thecapacity of individual communities to take on additional financial costs for essential services. Thischapter begins with a brief overview of the ethics procedures complied with, followed by an outlineof the methods used in the study.Ethical considerationsPrior to the commencement of this study, ethics clearance was obtained from the FlindersUniversity Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee and the Aboriginal Health Council(AHC) of South Australia. Both organisations require research with Aboriginal groups to complywith National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Guidelines for Ethical Researchwith Indigenous peoples. Both ethics committees also requested written confirmation from thefour communities that they were willing to be involved in the project. This was provided onceindividual communities were identified by the funding agencies and the communities agreed toparticipate. Funding for the research was gained from AARD, FACSIA, the Cooperative ResearchCentre for Aboriginal Health (CRCAH) and the Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre(DKCRC). United Water contributed seeding money. Selection of three of the communities wasdetermined through discussion with the funding bodies: AARD recommended Nepabunna andDavenport as both communities were covered by the Commonwealth-State Bilateral Agreement onEssential Services; FACSIA suggested Yarilena, a homeland settlement close to Ceduna; Scotdescowas incorporated into the study as it is situated close to Yarilena and is a similar kind of settlement.Nepabunna and Yarilena were formally contacted by the relevant funding agencies with a requestto be involved in the research. The research team contacted Davenport and Scotdesco directly.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC23

The study ran on a rolling basis with the Nepabunna timeframe extending from September 2005 toSeptember 2006; Yarilena settlement was involved in the project from December 2005 to December2006; Scotdesco’s engagement extended from May 2005 to December 2006; and Davenport joinedthe project in May 2006 through to April 2007. Preliminary reports on each settlement wereprovided to the relevant funding agencies at the appropriate dates.An Aboriginal reference group was established to provide a forum for discussion, accountabilityand guidance for the research team (Appendix 3). The reference group included Alwin Chong(AHC), Alwyn McKenzie (AARD, Premier and Cabinet), Sharon Meagher (AARD), Jason Downes(PIRSA), David Singh, Chris Rains and John Chester (ALT). The reference group met six timesover the life of the project. The research team also met quarterly with the funding agencies: AARD,FACSIA, and United Water, and provided three-monthly reports to the DKCRC and the CRCAH.In all cases these reports provided an outline of the research tasks completed, but no data fromindividual communities was provided to the funding agencies until the community had signed offon the final report.Don’t forget the plumber!A key ingredient in ethical research with Aboriginal people is to immediately address the problemunder investigation as well as collect data on the incidence of the issue. Miller and Rainow (1997)refer to this as ‘don’t forget the plumber’, alluding to their own research where they surveyed thestate of repair of health hardware such as baths, showers and washing machines in houses on theAnangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands. In their study a plumber accompanied them with thetask of immediately repairing all faulty taps, leaks or pipes surveyed. The principle here is that(Aboriginal) people appreciate an effort by researchers to provide an immediate return for theircooperation. In the current study, examples include employing local Aboriginal residents to collectthe data, paying residents a sitting fee to attend focus groups, and the preparation of CommunityWater Grants with two communities, one of which was successful. However, the most pertinentoutcome for this research project is for each community to reap the benefits associated with eithermore efficient water use or lower household expenditure on water services.Research methodsThe three data generating methods used in this study are contingent valuation (Carson et al. 1999),an audit of water use, and a cost of living analysis (Tregenza and Tregenza 1998). The processesare outlined below.Contingent valuationIn many communities, the proportion of income spent on water and electricity utilities is notknown. Before a user pays system is introduced, it should be understood whether hardship wouldincrease as a result. Some Aboriginal communities want a reliable and secure water supply thatmeets the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG), provided through a formal water serviceprovider (such as SA Water). Double-bounded (iterative bidding) contingent valuation (CV) wasused within the semi-structured face-to-face focus-group framework to determine willingness topay for water services. The details of the CV methodology (based on Bateman and Turner 1993;Carson et al. 1999) implemented by the research team is as follows:(a) Prior to conducting the survey participants were provided with background information, anexplanation of the purpose of the project, and the aim of the CV questioning. Participants wereinformed that the questions related to a hypothetical (but realistic) future scenario. For example,24 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

if, in the future, they wished to receive a ‘formally managed’ water supply from SA Water thatmet safe drinking water guidelines, participants were asked ‘How much would you be willing topay to gain access to that water service?’ It is a hypothetical question in that no such arrangementsare tabled, yet it is a realistic scenario if both parties want the same outcome. With lobbying forfunding such a service arrangement might be negotiated.(b) Participants were provided with a detailed description of a hypothetical water supply option anda summary fact sheet (Appendix 4). The community then discussed the nature of the water supplythat they might be willing to pay for, if it was an improvement on their current water supply inquality, quantity and reliability. In all the scenarios the supply options proposed to the communityfell within the local environmental constraints (climate and water resource availability), and theattainment of supply was sustainable and feasible.(c) Participants were provided with a detailed description of the institutional setting in which awater supply option would be provided. Again, this was discussed with the community so thatthey could decide on the type of institutional arrangements that they preferred. For example, thecommunity might decide to ask SA Water to provide the service, with each household receiving afully maintained water supply to the household boundary, using individual household meters, andwith each household receiving montly individual bill for water use with a tiered tariff system.(d) Participants were provided with a description of how the service might be paid for. Forexample, an automatic monthly debit of the full sum from a personal bank account or by theCommunity Council collecting a small amount each week.(e) Participants were asked a series of questions aimed at determining how much they would bewilling to pay for various levels of service (using the double-bound elicitation method of Batemanand Turner 1993). For example, one might begin by stating that in Adelaide in 2004 people usedon average 268 litres of water per person per day (L/p/d). Extrapolating this amount to the medianAboriginal household size in South Australia (3.3 people) yields around 884 L per household perday. Water is charged at $0.96/kL so this would give an average water bill of around $6.75 perhousehold per week. Based on this calculation participants could be asked ‘To receive the samelevel of water quality and water service delivery as people in Adelaide receive would you beprepared to pay $6.75 per week?’ If respondents reply ‘no’, one then enters a bidding game, i.e.one then asks ‘If you were prepared to use half that amount of water would you be prepared to pay$3 per household per week?’ It may be that the level of service in a remote settlement is perceivedto be ‘half as good’ as the service and quality in Adelaide and therefore participants may be asked‘Would you be prepared to pay half of what the people in Adelaide pay for water?’ This iterativebidding (double-bounded) line of questioning means that the sum identified in the willingnessto pay questions is scaled down until an amount is agreed upon (that amount may be zero). Zeroamounts may be given after a considered and careful response where the participant feels theycannot pay any amount for the service. Zero amounts may also be given as a ‘protest vote’ whenparticipants refuse to state any willingness to pay.(f) Participants were asked informal debriefing questions so the researchers could better understandthe context and meaning of their responses.(g) The results were interpreted with reference to the demographic data gathered in the cost ofliving study.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 25

Adapting the contingent valuation approachSome modifications were made to the CV process given that only one settlement in the study wasnot paying for water, and that mechanisms are in place for communities to apply for funding forminor capital works through Commonwealth Community Water Grants. The CV exercise focusedon the question of the community’s willingness to pay for additional technology that would addvalue to the existing supplies in terms of quality and sustainability and to meet the requirements ofthe NWI. Participants were presented with three to four scenarios that outlined the cost, and wereasked about their willingness to pay for a fraction of the full cost. Where possible the deliberationsof other communities were discussed with the group. The alternative sustainable technologies werepresented both orally and visually using diagrams that mapped the technology in the settlement(Appendix 4). During the bidding process it was possible for the community to select a hybridof the scenarios, and equally possible for them to select technologies that they would like tosee installed in their settlement, but were not willing to pay for. In one instance prior to the CVprocess, the community was clear on what improvements they wished to install. The researcherscosted the installation for this settlement and helped the community prepare a Community WaterGrant application, which, as noted above, was successful.A major limitation to CV as a rationale for providing services to Aboriginal people is theincorporation of the concept of paying for a future development. While the implementationof policies and service agreements incorporating ‘mutual obligation’ is now familiar to mostAboriginal groups, the uncertainty of service provision following the closure of ATSIC and theincorporation of CDEP contracts and Aboriginal Housing into mainstream departments has madesome Aboriginal communities suspicious of development agreements. This research occurred ata time (2005–2007) when the lines of communication, responsibilities and roles were still beingdefined between those federal and state government departments that had assumed responsibilityfor Aboriginal services and the Aboriginal communities and their agents. As a consequence, it ispossible that this uncertainty influenced some of the Aboriginal participants’ responses to the CVexercise.Water use auditSettlement water use data were required for a number of reasons. Firstly, there was a lack ofinformation on actual domestic and other water use in remote settlements. In some settlementswater use is unmetered, and in others the meters are not read, although they exist. Under the formerDAARE water meters were installed in all 18 settlements, but whether they are read or not is upto the local Community Council. In some settlements residents were not aware that they had watermeters in their houses. Compounding the uncertainty due to this lack of data are the conflictinganecdotal reports of a water conservation ethic on one hand, and possible infrastructure leaks andwasteful water use behaviour by children on the other (Willis et al. 2004).The second reason for collecting water meter readings was to determine whether water was beingwasted. A knowledge of household water use together with the corresponding number of occupantsenabled actual daily per capita water use to be calculated. Water use by various other activities canalso be monitored by recording the water use of settlement buildings including the administrationoffices and a visitor centre. These data enabled comparisons to be made between towns andregions. The settlement-based meter readings were also compared with gross water use data toidentify possible subterranean leaks from the reticulation infrastructure or other unaccounted lossesfrom the system. For Nepabunna, water meter readings were compared with groundwater pumpingrates from its two bores which were measured by the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity26 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Conservation (DWLBC). At Yarilena and Davenport, meter readings from individual buildingswere compared with readings on the mains water supply system at the settlement gate. Thirdly, it isnecessary to have an understanding of where or when most water is being used in order to identifystrategies or technologies where water savings can be made.Community members formed part of the research data collection team to read household watermeters. With the exception of Scotdesco, each settlement had readings taken over a period ofone year in a series of intensive four- to six-week periods. They were taken at different timesthroughout the year to show seasonal water use trends. Where possible, readings were taken ona Monday and Friday of each week during the intensive monitoring periods to show weekdayand weekend trends. Water use patterns during the ‘interval periods’ between the intensivemeasurements were obtained by comparing the meter readings on the last day of an intensivemonitoring period with the reading on the first day of the next intensive monitoring period. Thestaff were also asked to record population data at each house (usual residents, number of visitors,number of residents absent), as well as other noteworthy comments (e.g. known leaks, evaporativecoolers switched on).Calculation of the amount of rainwater that could potentially be harvested from roofsAt each settlement the amount of rainwater that could potentially be collected from roofs wasdetermined using the equation given in Australian Government (2004):A x (rainfall – B) x roof area = rainwater runoff (L)Where A is the efficiency of collection from a roof surface, with values of 80–85%efficiency.B is the loss of rainwater associated with the wetting of roof surfaces and absorption, witha value of 2 mm per month totalling 24 mm over the year (Australian Government 2004).In all calculations an efficiency of 85% was used; long-term rainfall data were accessed from theBureau of Meteorology, and data on the roof areas were provided by the respective settlements.The amount of rainwater that could potentially be harvested was then compared with the storagecapacity available (rainwater tanks) to give an indication of the scope to supplement the watersupplies through additional rainwater harvesting.The cost of living studyThe Tregenza and Tregenza (1998) method is similar in approach to other studies undertakenacross Australia to ascertain the relative cost of food for Australian families living in rural andremote areas (Leonard et al. 1997; Meedeniya et al. 2000). The study by Leonard et al. (1997) inQueensland compared fortnightly costs of a food basket in a variety of rural and remote locationsfor a hypothetical family of six, composed of one pensioner, two unemployed adults and threechildren aged 4, 8 and 14, with the cost of the same items for a family in similar employmentcircumstances living in Brisbane. The hypothetical family was not seen as an average rural/remotefamily, but was constructed to allow for appropriate calculation of food quantities across a range ofage groups living in Australian households. In the Meedeniya et al. (2000) study conducted in ruraland remote South Australia in 1999, the food basket used was based on the Australian Guidelinesto Healthy Eating (Smith et al. 1998) and met the National Health and Medical Research Council(NHMRC 1991) recommended dietary intake for Australians. The food items costed in remoteand rural areas were the cheapest, non-generic brands (Meedeniya et al. 2000), and focused onquality and availability as well as the percentage increase in costs. In this study, to calculate theA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 27

percentage mark up of prices in remote settlements in comparison to prices in Adelaide, the pricein Adelaide is taken as the benchmark value. That is, the difference in the price of an item in aremote settlement compared to the price in Adelaide is divided by the Adelaide price to give thepercentage mark up.Three modifications to this approach have been made in this study. First, the hypothetical familyconstructed for each settlement approximates the mean. This has been done to provide a morereliable assessment of the community’s capacity to take on additional costs. Second, the food basketcompiled for each settlement represents what the women said they actually purchased for theirfamilies. While in most cases it approximates the Australian Guidelines to Healthy Eating (Smithet al. 1998) there are some variations depending on the community’s capacity to access particularfood items, such as fish or meat. The food calculations from the Smith et al. (1998) study based onthe NHMRC guidelines were used as the guide. The third modification deals with the costing ofsupermarket items. In many cases generic brands were costed rather than the non-generic brands.Quantities in the shopping lists are guided by the serve sizes used in the Australian Guide toHealthy Eating (AGHE) as outlined in Table 3.1, and modified according to what people in thecommunities stated they ate. The calculations used are listed in Table 3.2. For example, while theAGHE specifies that adults should eat three medium-sized serve of fruit per day, and childrenshould have two, people in one settlement stated that each person would eat approximately threepieces of fruit per week. Similarly, in one settlement it was reported that people ate more meat andtinned baked beans and spaghetti than specified by the AGHE (Smith et al 1998). These differencesare partially a result of locational disadvantage, where access to shops is limited due to distance.They may also be linked to a diet based more on meat and carbohydrate due to people beinghistorically involved in work outdoors on pastoral properties.Where the Leonard et al. (1997) and the Meedeniya et al. (2000) studies deal with estimating therelative mark-up of food for rural and remote families, Tregenza and Tregenza (1998) take theiranalysis one step further and incorporate the cost of health consumables and health hardware intothe equation. Their methodology includes:1.2.3.4.5.6.construction of a hypothetical family for the communities under investigationcalculation of the income for the hypothetical family less community deductions such asrentcreation of a typical store box containing a weekly menu of food and other healthconsumable and hardware itemsa survey of the price of items from the weekly list in the local storea comparison of the costs of these items with Alice Springs supermarketsan estimation of the percentage of income left to the family or household group.28 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Table 3.1: Australian Guide to Healthy Eating (AGHE) sample serve sizes of the five food groupsOne serve of bread or cereal = 2 slices bread orCup cooked rice, pasta, noodles or1 cup cooked porridge or½ cups of muesli1 serve vegetables = ½ cup cooked vegetables or Cup salad or1 potato or½ cup peas, lentils or beans1 serve fruit = ½ cup juice or 1½ tablespoons sultanas or2 small pieces fruit or 1 large piece fruit1 serve dairy = 1 cup milk or 2 slices cheese or200g yoghurt or1 cup custard1 serve meat/ eggs/nuts/legumes = ½ cup mince or 65–100 g cooked meat or2 slices roast meat or½ cup cooked dried beans or2 small eggs or80–120g cooked fish fillet or1/3 cup peanuts or almonds or¼ cup sunflower or sesame seedsTable 3.2: Approximate quantities of the five food groups recommended by the AGHEApproximatedaily servesBread and cereals Vegetables Fruit Dairy Meat/eggs/nutsChild 8 5 2 3 1Woman 5 5 3 2 1.5Man 8 6 3 2 1.5Total daily serves 21 16 8 7 4Note: For for a hypothetical family of two adults and one child under 15 years of ageBy incorporating health consumables and hardware the authors are able to make informedcommentary on the capacity of community members to maintain health and wellbeing and pay foradditional services.Tregenza and Tregenza (1998) argued that the rationale for using the healthy hardware practicesas the basis for their study arose from the difficulty of drawing on previous economic researchto illustrate the impact of user pays on the health and welfare of Anangu. Studies carried out in1993/1994 by the SA Centre for Economic Studies incorporated the total income for the APYLands, including grants and community resources such as schools, clinics and stores. Whilecommunity-based grants are additional income, individuals do not necessarily have access to thismoney for daily living, although they may enjoy the resources that come from a community busor swimming pool. Further, resources such as clinics and schools on-site are part of the economiccapital of the group, but they do not directly contribute to family income, although it must berecognised that they reduce the costs of education and health care. The focus of the Tregenza andTregenza (1998) study was on the disposable income of families and on the broader capacity ofeach family to provide for their health and wellbeing.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 29

Ascertaining reliable data for the cost of living analysisFor this aspect of the study we sought three forms of data: census data available in the publicdomain or upon request from Australian Bureau Statistics (ABS), additional statistical dataavailable from National Aboriginal Health Strategy (NAHS), R3 Project Impact Assessment 2005data sets (Parson Brinckerhoff 2005) and community-generated data. The community-generateddata was collected as part of the research process and included information on population, incomeand employment characteristics, the customary economy, and costs related to the remoteness of thesettlement. This included such things as the cost of a car, which is necessary for shopping, and thecosts associated with a car. A major difficulty of data collection for this study was the relativelysmall size of the population in each of the four settlements in relation to ABS collection districts.In each case the ABS did not provide detailed community data, as confidentiality would have beentransgressed due to the low populations. Likewise, collection of sensitive data on household incomefrom settlements where it would be possible to identify individuals was a major motivating factorin our use of the cost of living analysis.It is important to point out that the ABS has an ongoing commitment to improve the qualityand comprehensiveness of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander data as demonstrated by theimplementation of initiatives such as the Indigenous Enumeration Strategy. However, at presentcensus data about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are best seen as ‘ballpark’ figuresonly and the ABS emphasises the importance of using the data with caution. For example, inguidelines developed to assist people in making use of census data about Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander Australians the ABS does not present census counts of Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander people as the best estimates of the size of the population but rather as a starting point todetermine estimates (Ross 1999, p. 59).The experience of researchers in this study supports the value of using Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander census data with caution. For example, initial examination of figures relating to themedian weekly family income in various Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander locations relevant tothis study raised questions which required some clarification with the ABS before the data could beincluded in this report. As a result of our queries, the ABS provided revised family income data fortwo Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander locations. This highlights the importance of researchersnot accepting the data at face value until any anomalies have been satisfactorily explained throughconsultation with the ABS.Data used to describe settlementsEach settlement is described in the following terms:• ABS Statistical Local Areas, Local Government Areas, Indigenous Areas and Locations andElectorate• ABS data on population, age composition, gender, CDEP and other forms of employment,labour force rates, and annual and weekly income• ABS 2001 data on income from unemployment and welfare payments• ABS 2001 data on income bands in relation to nearest rural town population of Aboriginaland non-Aboriginal populations• ABS 2001 data on the number of dwellings, household size and household dependency.30 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Additional data from NAHS R3 Project Impact Assessment 2005 (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2005),while incomplete was used to supplement the ABS data and included:• NAHS 2005 population data per community• NAHS 2005 employment data• NAHS 2005 data on the number of dwellings and household size.Community focus group data included:• the service population, including population fluctuations, age composition, gender, CDEPand other forms of employment• information on the customary economy• data on the cost of living in the settlement with specific reference to costs associated withthe purchase of food, medical care, health hardware items and travel.It should be noted that the three data sets are taken from different time periods: ABS 2001, NAHS2005, and focus groups 2005 through to 2007 which introduces increased variability into thecalculations with the data. One solution to this was to request permission from each communityto obtain access to Centrelink and/or clinic data. This was not pursued because it was assumedcommunities would find this an invasion of their privacy. Even generating the cost of living datawas seen by some participants as a sensitive exercise, although they could also see the value inhaving this information for other projects in which they were engaged.The research processThe initial settlement visitThe communities were visited three or four times by the same two members of the research team:Pearce and Willis (Nepabunna), Pearce and Ryan (Yarilena and Scotdesco), Pearce and Wadham(Davenport). Communication between visits was maintained through numerous newsletters.The first visit established the community’s willingness and interest in the research, the ethicalprinciples governing the project and the purpose of the planned three visits. This visit includedan explanation of the aims and objectives of the study, sought permission to tape the focus groupdiscussions, and completed the ethics-related paperwork (Appendix 5). During this visit thecommunity was introduced to the NWI recommendation that state governments should implementfull cost recovery, and to the various processes being used around the country to conserve water.The initial focus group discussion was in two parts.In the first part the participants were asked to brainstorm possible water sustainability solutionssuitable for their settlement so that the research team could investigate them prior to a returnvisit. At this point a plan was put in place to engage a community member as a research assistantto collect water meter readings. The research assistant was required to record the house number,date, water meter reading and number of occupants, for individual household dwellings as wellas community buildings. The settlement-based research assistant faxed or posted the data to theresearch team at Flinders University at the end of each six-week period. This data provided baselineinformation on water use which could be used in future studies to gauge the impact of watersaving technologies, if they are implemented.In the second part of the discussion the focus group members were shown 2001 ABS data on theircommunity that included population, age distribution, family size, gender, household, individualand family income, rent, number of dwellings, employment status and relative poverty in relationto the nearest rural town population of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. Discussion was heldA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 31

with the community on the reliability of the data given possible changes that might have occurredin the ensuing five years. A plan was then put in place to update the data. The purpose of the datawas outlined to the group as assisting in the construction of a hypothetical family specific to theircommunity in order to, at a later date, work out the cost of living. Copies of the Tregenza andTregenza (1998) cost of living analysis were provided to each participant to familiarise them withthe process and possible uses of the data. This document explains the research process in a clearmanner through the use of drawings and diagrams. In all cases the research team read through thedocuments during the focus group discussions to assist those with limited literacy or poor eyesight.The hypothetical family for each community was constructed from the updated data provided bythe community and by comparing these data with NAHS and ABS data. It was based on calculatingthe mean family size and composition and the most common form of employment. Across the fourcommunities the majority of individuals (over 70%) were employed on CDEP projects and this wasused to calculate family income. We did not use the classical hypothetical family of six (two adults,three children and one pensioner) in this study, but constructed an appropriate hypothetical familyfor each community in the interest of representing their case more accurately.Data collectionThe second and sometimes third trips to each settlement involved focus group discussions usingthe contingent valuation method, confirming our construction of a hypothetical family and income,and working with the women to identify a weekly menu and the cost of health consumables andhardware (Tregenza and Tregenza 1998).The contingent valuation study provided each community with options for sustainable technology.Communities were presented with at least three options. These options were based on previousresearch conducted at the settlement; the issues raised during the first field visit; advice soughtfrom AARD, SA Water, FACSIA and United Water on government policy; strategic plans; and thestate of current technology.The food items identified during this visit were costed at the nearest supermarket to the settlement.In the case of health hardware, items were costed at the town identified by community membersas their preferred option, even if it was several hundred kilometres away. The prices of all food,health consumables and heath hardware were compared with prices in Adelaide at a time as soon aspossible after that date in order to calculate the percentage difference.Household expenditure was based on the income of two adults per household, except whereCDEP data from the 2001 ABS Census plus updated data provided evidence to the contrary. Forexample, if the number employed on CDEP indicated few women were earning a wage, income wascalculated using only the male wage. Focus group discussions indicated that assumptions about alladult family members ‘chucking in’ money for weekly food and other household costs cannot beverified.Community verification of the reportThe focus of the final field trip was to negotiate community acceptance of the report. Drafts ofthe report were sent to the community in advance of the visit to give participants time to read andreflect upon the report. During the field visit the research team made a formal presentation of thereport consistent with the written version. The research team worked through the report with thecommunity, making the appropriate modifications to ensure they were happy with the final account.32 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Settlement characteristicsThe four settlements have a number of characteristics that need comment. All four are characterisedby high levels of CDEP employment and low numbers of resident non-Aboriginal staff, althoughNepabunna employs a part-time office administrator. All four are in desert regions with littleopportunity to access the customary economy given the environmental limitations. As aconsequence we have not calculated hunting activities into weekly incomes, although it exists inat least three of the four settlements. None of the four has its own store. In all cases settlementresidents are obliged to shop at the nearest town. In the case of Nepabunna and Scotdesco thenearest town is some distance away, making petrol costs a significant expense. Two settlements,Davenport and Nepabunna, came under Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division (AARD)responsibility through the Commonwealth-State Bilateral Agreement on Essential Services whileYarilena and Scotdesco are settlements which were the responsibility of the CommonwealthDepartment of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FACSIA) during theresearch period.Limitations of the studyThe study is limited by the fact that settlement-based data were not independently checked. Thisincludes both the data collected for the cost of living study as well as the water meter readings.The difficulties associated with this become evident where expenditure is more than income. Thissuggests that the costs, particularly for food, are overly generous and that individuals and familieswould not spend as much on food as we have estimated. This methodological error probably arisesfrom having a group of women in the settlement compile the weekly menu for their own family, notthe hypothetical family. The data were presented at the final visit to each settlement, at a meetingwhere several community members were present, and no objections were forthcoming for thefigures or analysis, but of course an objection is only likely to arise from a family similarly placedto the hypothetical family, and there may well be some shame in doing so. The strength of the costof living analysis is that it is an estimation of what a group of people in the designated settlementsay they spend and what they eat. It is not an account of what they should eat, nor is it an accurateestimation of what the hypothetical family spends on food.We have already noted that none of the settlements in this study has a store, although allcommunities seemed to access book-up facilities in the nearest town, and during interactions withcommunity members in local stores we noted some had credit cards. While we did note storesthat provided book-up services to the local Aboriginal community we did not seek informationon whether or not individuals had their cheques sent directly to the store or not, because of theinvasiveness of such a question. This practice is not necessarily a negative aspect of Aboriginalengagement in the market economy. As Altman et al. (2002) suggest it does provide people withcredit where they are otherwise ineligible for this privilege. This study did not explore budgetingcapacity or banking facilities with individual communities. Altman et al. (2002) have noted that theshift to electronic banking may have disadvantaged Aboriginal community members given that fewhave on-site banks and people tend to prefer fact-to-face interactions.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 33

ConclusionThis study used a qualitative and quantitative approach to the research questions. The twoqualitative methods were focus group discussions on the cost of living and the contingent valuationanalysis where community members were asked to reflect on whether they were willing to payfor a range of alternative water saving technologies suited to their settlement. Quantitative datawere collected on settlement and individual household use of water over a twelve-month period.The data will provide baseline information to any future research projects following installationof the proposed technologies. Quantitative data on the cost of living will provide policy makerswith guidance on the impact of any increases in water costs. Detailed analyses for each of thesettlements are outlined in the following chapters.34 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Chapter four: Cost of living at NepabunnaIntroductionThe key component of the contingent valuation study is to assess the community’s willingness topay for improvements in essential services such as water supply. A primary contributor underlyingwillingness to pay for water is the householder’s capacity to pay. Other considerations includeknowledge of the importance of the quality of water to the health and wellbeing of users, and in theAustralian context, the need for a sustainable supply. With this in mind the research team soughtdata that provided information on the percentage of income the Aboriginal communities spent onessential food and health hardware items. These data were seen as a pre-requisite to understandingcommunity decision making about their willingness to pay for infrastructure improvements, andto inform policy makers about the implications of the implementation of the NWI move to fullcost recovery. Settlements where the majority of the population are on low incomes and the watersupply, while sub-optimal, is adequate will be hesitant to take on additional costs. The methodused to determine capacity to pay (even a minimum amount) for improvements in essential watersupplies was the cost of living analysis (Tregenza and Tregenza 1998) as outlined in Chapter three.Construction of a hypothetical familyThe generation of a reliable hypothetical family for Nepabunna required access to data onpopulation, income, employment, family and household size. The data sources used in this studywere the 2001 Australian Census published by the ABS (2002), data from the National AboriginalHealth Strategy R3 Project Impact Assessment (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2005) and data gatheredduring this study as part of the water audit and focus group discussions. The period of datacollection was September 2005–October 2006.Nepabunna populationIn terms of the ABS Australian Indigenous Geographical Classification, Nepabunna is one ofseven Indigenous Locations (ILOCs) which make up the Indigenous Area (IARE) known as SouthAustralia north-east, namely Quorn, Port Pirie, Leigh Creek and Copley, Marree, Nepabunna,Oodnadatta, and South Australia north-east remainder. At the time of the 2001 ABS Census, thepopulation of Nepabunna was 53 people, with 85% (45) of these identified as Aboriginal and theremaining 15% (8) as non-Aboriginal. At the time the community comprised slightly more malesthan females (30 males, 23 females).Population estimates for the settlement of Nepabunna were also derived from alternative sources.Data relating to water usage in the settlement were collected by the Essential Services Officer(ESO), Mr Kelvin Johnson, as part of this research project. This provided a record of the numberof people per house, including fluctuations in daily and weekly population numbers. Collationof these figures generated a population of between 46 and 64 depending on the time of the weekand season. In contrast, data from the NAHS R3 Project Impact Assessment 2005 (site visited 21September 2005) reports a population of 63. Data collected in the water use study (Chapter five)gives a population of 64. This highlights the varying population estimates that can be derived fromdifferent sources. During the second visit to Nepabunna by the research team, the women who wereinterviewed identified, by name, 64 Aboriginal residents living in seventeen houses. There weremore males than females.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC35

Table 4.1: Population of Nepabunna at the time of the 2001 ABS CensusAboriginal Non-Aboriginal TotalMale Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total25 20 45 5 3 8 30 23 53Source: ABS 2002Age compositionFigure 4.1 highlights several features relating to the age composition of the Aboriginal populationof Nepabunna. According to ABS population data there are no children between the ages of 0–9years nor are there any community members over the age of 65 years. Secondly, the pattern ofdistribution of males and females throughout the different age brackets is quite different. Moremales than females are represented in younger age groups but are then not evident beyond the35–39 age bracket. In contrast, females are represented in a broader range of age brackets spanning15–64 years and at a consistent level with the exception of the 35–39 year age bracket wherenumbers peak. The median age for Aboriginal people is 33, a figure which is significantly lowerthan the median age of 52 for non-Aboriginal people for the whole of Australia.65 yrs & over60-64 yrs55-59 yrs50-54 yrs45-49 yrs40-44 yrs35-39 yrs30-34 yrs25-29 yrs20-24 yrs15-19 yrs10-14 yrs5-9 yrs0-4 yrsFemalesMales0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Figure 4.1: Age composition of the Aboriginal population of Nepabunna.Note: 2001ABS Census data for Nepabunna presents ages for 36 Aboriginal people only and not the total population of 45 as shown in Table 4.1.Data were not gathered on the age of residents at Nepabunna, although estimates of the ratio ofadults to children were collected. In interviews the women identified 49 adults, ten children underthe age of 15 and five teenagers (defined as those under the age of 20 as of May 2006). The fifteenchildren and teenagers are distributed between eight households, with nine households composedof adults only. Four of the teenagers are males. The difference between the 2001 ABS figures andthose gathered in 2005 is the result of families with children returning to Nepabunna, includingchildren returning to live with a relative such as a grandparent. In these cases the custodial parent isdependent on their pension.36 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Household sizeThe 2001 Census (ABS 2002) indicated that the mean household size for the Aboriginal populationof Nepabunna was 3.5. NAHS do not provide data on household size for Nepabunna; however,data from the water audit and focus group sessions with settlement residents indicate the averagehousehold was around 2.8–3.2 people, while the median was between 3.0–3.5. Households rangedfrom 1–6 people per household for the Aboriginal population. On the basis of these calculations thehypothetical family was set at two adults and one child under the age of fifteen. Table 4.2 providesdata on the household size. There is an argument for constructing an additional hypothetical familyof 3–4 adults with no children. We have not done this because of the mobility of adult children insuch households.Calculation of the income of a hypothetical familyEmployment opportunities at NepabunnaEmployment opportunities for Aboriginal people at Nepabunna are generated predominantly bythe Community Development Employment Program (CDEP). Table 4.3 shows that 86% (18) of theAboriginal labour force were participants in CDEP at the time of the 2001 Census, while 14% (3)were employed in other areas. Non-Aboriginal people were employed wholly in other areas.Using figures from Table 4.3, labour force status for the population aged 15 years and over ispresented in Table 4.4. In this instance, the total population aged over 15 years consists of the sumof the total number in the labour force and the total number not in the labour force. The continuingreliance on CDEP is shown in data from the NAHS R3 Project Impact Assessment 2005 whichindicated that there were 16 CDEP participants in the settlement engaged in activities related torevegetation programs, general settlement maintenance, and a native foods venture. Focus groupinterviews with community members indicates a further 22 people rely on CDEP and pensionpayments. Of these, six are women and 16 are male; this includes the four males in the 15–19 yearsage group.Income derived from CDEP at NepabunnaKey sources of income in Nepabunna are wages derived from CDEP or mainstream forms of work,and Centrelink benefit payments. Table 4.5 provides a comparison of the median weekly incomeat the level of the individual and family for Nepabunna and the other Indigenous Locations withinthe same Indigenous Area. Based on the ABS 2001 Census, the data shown relate specificallyto gross income derived from sources such as wages, salary, pensions, unemployment benefits,family allowances, student allowances and maintenance. Family income is made up of the sum ofindividual incomes of each resident family member aged 15 years and over who is present in thehousehold on Census night. Family income is not applicable to non-family households, such asgroup households or lone person households, or to people in non-private dwellings. The 2001 ABSCensus figures provide a reasonable indication of the level of family income for this study whichfocuses on calculating the weekly family income for a hypothetical family.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 37

Table 4.2: Household size at Nepabunna, May 2006Household Adults Children Teenager1 2 0 02 1 2 03 1 0 24 6 0 05 2 0 06 2 3 07 3 0 08 4 1 19 2 1 010 3 0 011 1 1 112 0 0 013 2 0 014 5 0 015 2 2 016 0 0 017 1 0 018 4 0 119 1 0 020 2 0 021 5 0 022 0 0 023 0 0 0Total 49 10 5Table 4.3: Employment in NepabunnaAboriginal Non-Aboriginal TotalEmploymentMale Female Total Male Female Total Male Female TotalEmployed CDEP 14 4 18 0 0 0 14 4 18Employed other 3 0 3 3 3 6 6 3 9Total labour force 17 4 21 3 3 6 20 7 27Not in the labour force 3 10 13 0 3 3 3 13 16Unemployment rate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Source: ABS 2002Table 4.4: Labour force status for residents of NepabunnaEmployment/population ratioCDEP%Other%Unemployment rateProportion not in thelabour force Total 15+% % % NoAboriginal 53 9 0 38 100 34Non-Aboriginal 0 100 0 0 100 6Source: McCarthy 2005At the individual median weekly income level, Nepabunna ($160–$199) was the same as Port Pirieand Marree ($160–$199) but it falls below the communities of Quorn ($200–$299), Oodnadatta($200–$299), Leigh Creek, Copley ($300–$399), and SA north-east remainder ($200–$299).In Port Augusta, the closest major service centre to Nepabunna, the median weekly income forAboriginal people is also $200–$299. At the family income level, the median weekly income forNepabunna is $500–$599. The other Indigenous Locations in the same Indigenous Area and PortPirie had the same weekly family income, while SA north-east remote, Leigh Creek and Copley38 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

were higher at $600–$699. Quorn and Oodnadatta have lower family incomes of $400–$499. Houserental charges, one of the primary ongoing expenses to be deducted from income, are also shownin Table 4.5. According to ABS data, the rent paid by Aboriginal people at Nepabunna falls at thelower end of the scale ($1–$49), which is reasonable given their lower income levels.Table 4.5: Median weekly income for Indigenous Locations in SA north-east Indigenous areaIndigenousLocationMedian weeklyMedian weeklyMedian weekly rent $individual income $family income $Aboriginal Non-Aboriginal Aboriginal Non-Aboriginal Aboriginal Non-AboriginalNepabunna 160–199 160–199 500–599 n.a. 1–49 n.a.Quorn 200–299 200–299 400–499 600–699 50–99 50–99Port Pirie 160–199 200–299 500–599 600–699 100–149 50–99Leigh Creek and Copley 300–399 600–699 600–699 1,200–1,499 50–99 1–49Marree 160–199 300–399 700–799 300–399 50–99 1–49Oodnadatta 200–299 400–499 400–499 1,200–1,499 1–49 1–49SA north-east rem. 200–299 300–399 600–699 700–799 50–99 50–99Source: ABS 2002The customary economy at NepabunnaSome Nepabunna residents supplemented their income through fortnightly hunting trips forkangaroo and other native animals (Willis et al. 2004). However, we have not calculated eitherthe cost of hunting trips or the impact of access to ‘free’ meat on family food costs, because ofthe variable nature of this aspect of the customary economy, and because savings are cancelledout by the high cost of petrol, and the need for a gun licence. There do not appear to be manyopportunities to generate additional income at Nepabunna. The settlement has a bush garden, butoutput is limited by the low rainfall. The community does operate a tourist program, but incomefrom this does not go to individuals, rather it is allocated to settlement-based improvementprograms. The prospect for increased tourist activities is limited because the Nepabunna settlementis not on the main Marree–Oodnadatta road, and services are already provided by Iga Wartasettlement, only 5 kilometres from Nepabunna.The hypothetical family incomeGiven the population, household size, age structure of the children at Nepabunna and theemployment characteristics of the adults, the composition of the hypothetical family in Nepabunnais two adults, one deriving income from CDEP wages, and one child aged under 15 years.Calculations for the hypothetical families used CDEP rates as outlined in the CDEP Guidelines2005–06 and Centrelink payment rates from the Guide to Australian Government Payments (20March to 30 June 2006). As Nepabunna falls within the Australian Taxation Office Special Zone Beach person also receives a remote area allowance.As shown in Table 4.6, the total income received by the hypothetical family is $552.82. Incomparison, the poverty line for a couple with one child aged under 15 years who are solely relianton welfare payments for income is calculated to be $536.19 for the same period (June quarter2006), so the hypothetical Nepabunna family receives $16.63 per week above the poverty linebut is still within the definition of poverty (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and SocialResearch 2006).A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 39

Table 4.6: Weekly income of the hypothetical family at NepabunnaCDEP $229.00 x 1 $229.00CDEP supplement $10.40 x 1 $10.40Parenting payment $185.25 x 1 $185.25Family tax benefit Part AOne child aged between 13 and 15 yrsFamily tax benefit Part BOne child aged between 13 and 15 years$86.87 x 1 $86.87$25.70 x 1 $25.70Remote area allowance $7.80 x 2 $15.60Total income $552.82Establishing the cost of livingTravel, utility and rental costsNepabunna has no community store for the purchase of food and other household items. It isapproximately 65 kilometres from the nearest major centre at Leigh Creek/Copley and 408kilometres from Port Augusta. As a consequence families at Nepabunna need a car for weeklytravel to Leigh Creek for shopping and for trips to Port Augusta to purchase clothes, largerhousehold items or medical care. Many households have a car, or access to a car. No familyat Nepabunna is in a financial position to purchase a vehicle outright; all must use a car loanrepayment system. Car loan repayments for 4–6 cylinder cars range from $100–$400 permonth. This study sets a rate of $165.52 per month over a three-year period for a car purchasedfor $5,000. This is deducted fortnightly from CDEP and pension incomes. Car registration ofapproximately $146 is paid three-monthly, as householders cannot afford the annual lump sum.Petrol costs are approximately $50 per week for two return trips to Leigh Creek and for periodictrips to Port Augusta for the purchase of clothes and health hardware. A yearly sum of $1,040 hasbeen added to cover cost of tyres and repairs.Nepabunna residents have been paying full retail costs for their electricity for approximately fiveyears. This is $80 per fortnight which is deducted from their CDEP or pensions by the communityadministrator and banked for them in order to meet individual quarterly accounts. Residents payan additional $25 per week to the Housing Association to cover rent and house maintenance andrepairs. The community arranges for a local plumber to do periodic maintenance of all its houses.Residents do not pay for their water. We have included telephone costs, although not all familieshave access to a telephone. Table 4.7 approximates regular weekly expenditure for the hypotheticalfamily for travel to purchase food, electricity costs and rental accommodation based on informationgained from Nepabunna community members in a focus group in May 2006, and confirmed on 26September 2006.Schooling costsFamilies on low incomes are eligible for a School Card which amounts to a payment of $175 peryear per child for primary school children and $225 for high school students. School fees at LeighCreek Area School for primary students are $175 per year. For Nepabunna residents school fees arecancelled out by the equivalent School Card payment. Ideally, Nepabunna residents should have 4 wheel drive vehicles for all-weather access to Leigh Creek. An ANZ $5000 loan at a fixed interest rate of 12.49% over 3 years will require payments of $82.76 per fortnight. Over two years the payments would be $115.44 perfortnight. Petrol costs have been estimated with reference to the Red Book (2006). Rental costs are means tested at Nepabunna so those on higher incomes would pay more than $25 per fortnight.40 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Medical and associated health costsThe hypothetical family is eligible for a Health Care Card. Health Care Card holders pay $4.70per prescription for medicines up to the threshold of $253.80 per annum. This represents 54Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) prescriptions at which point medications are free, providingthey are the least costly brand on the PBS schedule. However, Pika Wiya Aboriginal CommunityControlled Health Service provides free pharmaceuticals at the community health clinic forthose on a Health Care Card and pensioners. Health Care Card holders are also eligible for freeemergency ambulance travel and some transport concessions. Nepabunna has an ambulance butpublic transport is not available. Aboriginal people at Nepabunna on wages can also use the PikaWiya health service but they pay for their pharmaceuticals. Those on wages reported that they werenot always able to pay for medications linked to diabetes and blood pressure despite the low cost(of medication).Table 4.7: Travel, utility and rental costs for a hypothetical family at Nepabunna, 2006Item Cost per week $ Annual cost $Car repayments 41.38 2,151.76Car registration 11.23 584.00Petrol 50.00 2,600.00Additional car costs including tyres and repairs 20.00 1,040.00Electricity per household 40.00 2,080.00Phone (most have STD bar) 20.00 1,040.00Rent 25.00 1,300.00Water 0 0Total 207.61 10,795.76Nepabunna families seek dental care either at Leigh Creek or Port Augusta where they pay the fullcommercial rate, or with the public dental service operating through Pika Wiya where the service isfree. The current waiting list for free dental care is around 14 months (Richards et al. 2002), so wehave assumed that the majority of Nepabunna residents either go without regular dental care or usethe private service at Leigh Creek. This was confirmed during the September 2006 trip when twopensioners reported going without dental and optical treatment. Testing eyesight is free throughMedicare, but prescription glasses average around $260 per pair and ideally should be replacedevery two years. The amount of $18.06 per week has been identified for medical costs. It includesone dental visit per year for both adults , one pair of glasses for one adult every four years, andtravel costs. These costs are outlined below in Table 4.8.Table 4.8: Weekly and yearly medical and associated costs for a hypothetical family at NepabunnaItem Cost per week $ Annual cost $PBS prescriptions up to threshold for one family Nil NilMinimum dental care two adults per year* 4.03 210Glasses – one pair per adult every four years 2.50 130Travel plus accommodation 11.53 600Total 18.06 940.00* Dental care assumes one visit per year, plus dental hygienist visit. To be eligible for a Health Care Card, Centrelink (2007) indicates that a family income for two adults and one child needs to be less than $734.00 per week. Dental care for children is free in South Australia for Health Care Card holders and $30 per child for all other families.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 41

Creation of a family menu and costing of items at local storesCompiling a store boxGenerating a stores box involved three processes:(1) compiling a weekly family menu for the hypothetical family (Appendix 6) – this was done bythree women at Nepabunna during the May 2006 visit to the settlement(2) pricing the items at the Leigh Creek supermarket and Copley store, which, while moreexpensive than Leigh Creek supermarket, is able to send food to the Nepabunna settlement with themail run, so was seen as a valued and much needed resource (Appendix 7)(3) pricing these items in Adelaide for comparison (Appendix 8).The weekly menu that formed the basis of the food list was based on what these three women atNepabunna said they prepared for their families. Unlike the Tregenza and Tregenza (1998) study,no attempt was made to determine the nutritional value of the diet, although the women themselvesdid comment on the lack of fresh fruit and vegetables and the high cost of these items at LeighCreek. Both supermarkets at Leigh Creek and Copley provide a book-up system for Nepabunnaresidents where items purchased can be deducted from their pension or CDEP allowance.The amount of food in the shopping lists is guided by the quantities from the Australian Guide toHealthy Eating (AGHE) serve sizes for each food group (Smith et al. 1998) and modified accordingto what people in the communities stated that they ate. For example, while the AGHE specifiesthat adults should eat three medium-sized serves of fruit per day and children should have two, thewomen in Nepabunna stated that each person ate about three pieces of fruit per week. Nepabunnaresidents also eat more meat and tinned baked beans and spaghetti than specified by the AGHE.Survey of the cost of food from the weekly menuA survey of supermarket items from the shopping list was conducted in May 2006 at both theCopley and Leigh Creek stores. The items listed in the menu, or available at Leigh Creek, werepriced at the Pasadena Foodland Supermarket in Adelaide in May 2006 for comparison. Items weredivided into groups that were bought weekly, fortnightly or monthly. The total cost of these itemshas been divided by two for fortnightly or four for monthly items and added to the weekly costof shopping to gain an average weekly cost depending on how often they were purchased. Whenrecording food items for pricing from the shops in Leigh Creek, Copley and Adelaide, a variedselection of brands, including generic brands, were included. This was done because Nepabunnaresidents informed us that generic brands were not always purchased, since they are not always themost economical. For example, more expensive brands of shampoo and detergent are necessarybecause of the hardness of the water at Nepabunna. Food costs were estimated to be approximately$143.61 per week. The list of food items from Leigh Creek can be found in Appendix 7. Anadditional $15 per week has been added for school lunches and trips to town, bringing the totalamount to $158.61. The prices for food at Copley, Leigh Creek and Port Augusta were comparedwith prices for similar items in Adelaide in May 2006. Table 4.9 outlines the weekly costs of fooditems for Nepabunna and Adelaide residents and also gives a percentage mark-up on prices betweenthe two localities. Note however, that in Appendix 7 it is evident that there is little difference in price between Adelaide and Leigh Creek/Copley for fruit and vegetables. There are greatermark-ups on other shop items.42 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Table 4.9: Comparison of costs for weekly food items in Nepabunna and AdelaideFood costs $ Health consumables costs $Nepabunna total weekly costs for food and nonalcoholicdrinks, (excludes school lunches andsnacks in town)Adelaide total weekly cost for similar foodexcluding school lunches and snacks in town143.61 Nepabunna total weekly cost for healthconsumables124.09 Adelaide total weekly cost for healthconsumablesDifference in weekly costs for food 19.52 Difference in weekly costs 6.46Percentage mark-up for food for NepabunnaresidentsNote: For a family of two adults and one childHealth hardware costs15.7% Percentage mark-up for Nepabunnaresidents for health consumablesA key argument of the Tregenza and Tregenza study (1998) is that the cost of living goes beyondfood to include health consumables and health hardware. Tregenza and Tregenza (1998) definehealth consumables as household items needed to maintain personal and public health and hygienesuch as bathing and showering, washing clothes, and the maintenance of a clean house. Householditems coming under this heading include personal products such as soap and shampoo, cleaningagents such as disinfectants, and toilet cleaning products. The cost of health consumables came to$40.96 per week and is detailed in Appendix 7.Health hardware consists of less frequent expenses such as brooms, mops, buckets, cookingutensils, blankets and other bedding, and white goods such as kettles, toasters, refrigeratorsand washing machines. These are often purchased at Port Augusta. Trips to Port Augusta aremade on average 6–8 times a year and may be linked to visits to the doctor, relatives or forfunerals. Families are responsible for the purchase of their own white goods such as refrigerators,irons, electric kettles, toasters, crockery and cutlery. The initial outlay is often provided by theNepabunna Housing Association and the residents repay the loan by having it deducted from theirCDEP or pension payments. We have calculated an on-going cost for this of $7.65 per week. TheDepartment for Family and Youth Services (FAYS) also provides some second-hand white goods topensioners; although the community felt that in some instances these products were of an inferiorquality. Houses are equipped with a central heater and washing machine and minimal furniture.See Appendix 7 for health hardware costs. An estimation of the cost differences between healthconsumables in Nepabunna and Adelaide is provided in Table 4.9 and of overall costs of living forNepabunna in Table 4.10.Nepabunna residents purchase some clothes at Leigh Creek, but many larger purchases are madeat Port Augusta, in order to take advantage of the increased range and cheaper prices. Most femalecommunity members said they bought clothes from second-hand shops and noted the difficulty ofbuying clothes for larger women. Some donations of clothing and other items are received fromgroups in Adelaide; however, these donations should not be seen as part of the hybrid economy asthis is an unpredictable source.Table 4.10: Estimated weekly and yearly costs for food, health consumables and health hardwareItem Cost per week $ Annual cost $Food (weekly shop and school lunches) 158.61 8,247.72Health consumables 40.96 2,129.92Clothing 20.00 1,040.00Health hardware 7.65 397.80Total 227.22 11,815.44Note: At Nepabunna, May 200640.9634.5018.7%A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 43

An estimation of the weekly expenditure of the hypothetical familyTable 4.11 provides a list of average weekly and annual expenses for the hypothetical family atNepabunna in 2006. The hypothetical family income at Nepabunna is estimated to be $552.82($28,746.64 p.a.) with $452.89 per week ($23,551.20 p.a.) needed for basic essential items such asfood, health consumables, health hardware, and general living expenses. This represents 81.9% ofthe family’s income. These calculations do not include travel to funerals, holidays, Christmas andbirthday gifts, family celebrations such as weddings or family-related emergencies. Nor does thiscalculation allow for occasional treats or (particularly important for populations with higher thanaverage incidence of diabetes) adequate intake of fruit and vegetables. Other costs not included inthe budget are purchase of Austar satellite pay television, sporting activities (including travel tosporting fixtures), cigarettes or alcohol, household furnishings, or personal care such as visits to thehairdresser.Table 4.11: Average weekly and annual expenses for the hypothetical familyItem Cost per week $ Annual cost $Travel, utility and rental costs 207.61 10,795.76Medical costs 18.06 940.00Food, health consumables, health hardware & clothing 227.22 11,815.44Total 452.89 23,551.20Note: At Nepabunna, based on prices in 2006Comparison of prices with the ABS Household Expenditure SurveyTable 4.12 shows the total weekly expenses of the hypothetical family and a comparison of someitems with the average percentage of household income spent on these in the ABS HouseholdExpenditure Survey 2003–2004. In this table an additional $15 has been added to the food bill forschool lunches and snacks in town.Statistics from the ABS Household Expenditure Survey (HES) 2003–2004 (ABS 2005) indicatethat households ranked in the lowest 20% of income spend approximately $412 per week on goodsand services. Households in the highest quintile spend around $1,484. These differences in the HESdata are partly explained by household size, with households in the lowest quintile containing onaverage 1.5 people, as against 3.4 in the highest quintile (ABS 2005). This same report notes thathouseholds that rely on government pensions and allowances, on average, spend $455 per weekon goods and services. The overall increase in the household expenditure on goods and servicesbetween 1998–1999 and 2003–2004 was $184. Of significance to the Nepabunna community isthe 32% increase in domestic fuel and power and the 26% increase in petrol costs in the period.Electricity costs at Nepabunna are not subsidised; the community pays the full retail price.It is interesting to note that the ABS average household expenditure for recreation was 12.8%, fortobacco 1.3% and for alcoholic beverages 2.6%. If these are included for the Nepabunna household,98.6% of the total household income would be spent.44 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Table 4.12: Weekly expenses for the hypothetical family at NepabunnaItem Cost in $ % of Nepabunna familyincomeAverage percentage ABS HouseholdExpenditure Survey 2003–2004Food and non-alcoholic drink 143.61 26.0 % not givenSchool lunches, snacks in town 15.00 2.7 % not givenAll food 158.61 28.7 17.1Health consumables 40.96 7.4 1.9% (personal care)Fuel 50.00 9.1 % not givenAdditional car costs 72.61 13.1 15.6% (total for transport)Electricity 40.00 7.2 2.6Phone 20.00 3.6 % not givenRent 25.00 4.5 16.1School 0.00 0 % not givenChildcare 0.00 0 % not givenWater 0.00 0 % not givenHealth hardware items 7.65 1.4 5.8Medical 18.06 3.3 5.1Clothing 20.00 3.6 4.0Total 452.89 81.9 68.2Note: Also, percentage of income compared with the ABS Household Expenditure Survey 2003–2004 averageLimitations of the study findings and the impact of user pays forwater services on the wellbeing of Nepabunna residentsThis analysis uses a hypothetical family at Nepabunna. The weekly income is derived fromCDEP figures and assumes only one adult is in receipt of this wage. While this may be an underestimationof the income of families in mainstream employment, it is an over-estimation for thosefamilies at Nepabunna whose income is limited to either a disability or aged pension and whohave responsibility for children. The analysis has also confined income estimations to the familyunit, rather than households. While households may generate more than the $552.82 per week,our research indicates that it is erroneous to assume that household costs are shared equally inAboriginal communities. Data from Nepabunna taken during the water meter reading exercise in2005–2006 indicate variability in settlement population ranging from 46 to 64 people depending onthe day of the week and time of the year. This is an additional variable in household costs.The results of this study are similar to those of Tregenza and Tregenza (1998) for the APY Landswhich calculated the cost of living at 84% of the income of a hypothetical family. The cost ofliving for Nepabunna residents is estimated to be around 82% of the income of a hypotheticalfamily. The Tregenza study was done as part of the COAG trial of its Healthy Store Policy and thefindings were used to argue against state government proposals to move to user pays for electricity.The data illustrate that the majority of household income for the hypothetical family is spent onfood and transport and other essential household health hardware and consumables. An increase inthe cost of living would put a strain on families in similar situations. Increasing financial burdensruns counter to state policy concerned with Aboriginal wellbeing. The situation at Nepabunnawould appear to apply to the sections in the National Water Initiative that acknowledge that someservices that are uneconomical might need to be ‘maintained to meet social and public healthobligations’.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 45

46 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Chapter five: Water use at NepabunnaIntroductionThis chapter commences with a brief overview of the nature and quality of the water supply system.The main focus of the chapter is an analysis of the water consumption data and the implicationsof the findings. The results of past investigations into alternative water resources in the region areoutlined, followed by the results of the community discussion on water resources and water useefficiencies. In the latter part of the chapter concerns about the possibility of payment for waterservice delivery are raised.Water supplyRainwater collected from the roof of the basketball stadium is the only potable supply atNepabunna. The rainwater feeds into a 195 kL ground storage tank before passing through anultraviolet light disinfection plant. A dual reticulation system carries the potable supply to onetap at the kitchen sink in each dwelling and settlement building. The non-potable componentof the settlement’s dual reticulation system comprises groundwater from two bores, 0.5 km and3.5 km from the settlement. The groundwater is pumped into two 195 kL ground storage tankson a hill above the settlement from where it is gravity-fed to each building (Willis et al. 2004).According to Dodds and Sampson (2002) ‘water production [from the bores] has been 20% lower[in 2002] suggesting that maintaining the water supply has been difficult’. One of the bores(N101) has a very slow recovery rate after pumping, and the bore has not been given sufficientrest from pumping to allow the groundwater levels to recover since monitoring began in October1999, leading Dodds and Sampson to comment that ‘current pumping regimes are beyond thesustainability of this well’. While the second bore (N149) is capable of sustaining a pumping ratethat is double to treble that of bore N101, there is concern due to a lack of evidence that therehas been any recharge replenishing the groundwater stores since December 1999, even followingsizeable rainfall events (55 mm in 2 hours). More recently Morgan et al. (2003) have commentedthat the bores are being pumped at what is considered the sustainable extraction rates, but themaximum sustainable extraction rates are unknown (DWLBC as cited in Morgan et al. 2003). Itis therefore recommended that the sustainable pumping rates of the bores be investigated further.Wastewater from a septic tank effluent disposal scheme is treated (filtered and chlorinated) to aquality that allows it to be used on planted landscape and revegetation areas within the settlement(DOSAA 2002).Water qualityThe groundwater at Nepabunna is highly mineralised, which is the reason a separate drinking watersupply was established. The average Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) is 1,390 mg/L, hardness is 1,000mg/L, iron exceeds 8 mg/L (Table 5.1), and sulphate is close to the health limit with a value of 450mg/L. The highest recorded values and variability of TDS, sulphate, hardness, and iron found inthe two bores in relation to the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG) values are given inTable 5.1.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC47

Testing for heavy metals in October 2000 shows elevated levels of arsenic (21 µg/L) and lead (30µg/L) compared with the recommended ADWG values (7 and 10 µg/L respectively). Morgan etal. (2003) recommended that further testing for heavy metals be conducted. Fluoride and nitratelevels in both the potable and non-potable supplies are within ADWG (Morgan et al. 2003). Interms of microbiological parameters, samples taken from the settlement rainwater tank, nonpotablewater supply (at the fire hydrant and from each storage tank), and ultraviolet-treatedwater from a drinking water tap and a rainwater tap were tested in May and July 2003 for totalcoliforms and E.coli organisms. Organisms were found in the non-potable water supply. Morganet al. (2003) recommend that since contaminated water comes into contact with people’s skinduring ablutions some form of disinfection of the water supply would be prudent to minimise therisk of infection. This recommendation is in keeping with the ADWG management frameworkwhich is a preventative risk management strategy proactive in identifying and rectifying risks inwater supply systems. Under the ADWG water management framework, devices and proceduresshould be implemented in all water supply systems, and subjected to ongoing review to ensure thatwater quality is not compromised (NHMRC 2004). An example of this precautionary approachin managing the water supply in Nepabunna is the $470,000 spent in 2006 to replace two storagetanks (Figure 5.1) and install an ultraviolet light disinfection plant on the non-potable water supply(S Wurst 2006, pers. comm. ). It costs AARD around $2,670 per fortnight ($1,335 per weekexcluding maintenance expenses) to supply Nepabunna with treated water (abstraction, piping,storage, ultraviolet disinfection, reticulation) (L Morgan 2006, pers. comm. ).Table 5.1: A summary of the bore water quality at NepabunnaComponentADWG value(mg/L)Ave. concentration(mg/L)TDS 1,000 1,390 2,240; Bore 101 is variableHighest recorded value and variability of parameterSulphate 500 450 565 in Bore 101 over 3 dates, otherwise below 500Total hardness 200(a) 1,000 1,275; Bore 101 variable, the means of the 2 bores are 1,080 and 840Iron 0.3(a) >8 8.81; Bore 101 is below 0.3(a) Aesthetic guideline is shown (i.e. taste, odour, etc). Source: DOSAA 2002; Morgan et al. 2003.Water useWater meter readings (Appendix 9) were taken at all buildings over a 365-day period from 26September 2005 to 26 September 2006 in a series of intensive six-week periods (with readingsevery Monday and Friday). To calculate per capita consumption, the number of people present inthe house at the time of the meter reading was noted, that is, the number of visitors present, whethera resident was absent, and periods when the house was vacant. Water use was also estimated forthe intervals between intensive measurements by comparing water meter readings at the end of anintensive measurement period with the meter reading at the start of the next intensive data collectionperiod. The data are less accurate during the interval periods because corresponding population dataare not available. The average daily per capita domestic water use over the year, during intensivemeasurement periods and interval periods is given in Table 5.2. Based on the data gathered duringthese periods, average per capita domestic bore water use is 435 L/p/d based on a population of 63people (a population of 63 was obtained from the water use data collection and is used in all percapita water consumption calculations in Chapter five). The data exclude the potable (rainwater) use.The average per capita water use of 435 L/p/d (Table 5.2) is for 19 occupied houses. Remote Communities Project Officer, Major Projects, SA Water Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division, Department of Premier and Cabinet, South Australia48 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Figure 5.1: The water storage tank compound at Nepabunna, upgraded in 2006Source of photograph: SA Water.Table 5.2: Average daily per capita domestic water use at NepabunnaAverage water use(L/p/d)Period over which the water use was calculated435 365 days from 26 September 2005 to 26 September 2006357 56 day period from 26 September to 21 November 2005 (intensive)545 21 November 2005 to 27 February 2006435 25 day period from 27 February to 24 March 2006 (intensive)297* 73 days from 17 July to 26 September 2006 (intensive)*Average for 18 houses; all other calculations are based on 19 houses.In the sections that follow the data from the intensive collection periods are examined in relationto weekday versus weekend trends, the number of visitors or household occupants, temperatures,leaks, and the results of other studies.Weekend and weekday water use and the influence of the number ofoccupantsAn analysis of temporal patterns in water use in most houses at Nepabunna is complicated byvarying occupancy. Some weekend records coincided with visitors, others showed absences, andsome corresponded with the usual household occupancy. Low water use in some households isattributed to frequent absences of the occupants. Of the 19 occupied houses, only one householdused more water on weekends than during the week (with the same number of people present), asshown in Table 5.3.Table 5.3: Daily water use at one household: weekdays and weekendsDaily water use (L/p/d)Period of data collection1,113 Tuesday – Friday1,176 Monday – Friday1,207 Monday – Friday1,650 Friday – Sunday1,675 Saturday – Sunday1,977 Friday – Monday2,079 Friday – SundayA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 49

Four households show frequent periods of no use, with two of these showing absences (i.e. nowater use), mostly on weekends. The importance of knowing the occupancy rate of houses todetermine accurate per capita water use is highlighted by the example of house 22. During shortperiods when the house was undoubtedly occupied, water use is 168 L/p/d, but when the averagewater use is calculated over the 56-day period, water use is 75 L/p/d—due to the frequent absences.There is little relationship between the number of occupants and the amount of water used. Forexample, the three houses with the highest water use have two permanent residents and only theoccasional visitor, whereas in houses with five or more people present (residents plus visitors),water use ranges from 191 to 560 L/p/d (house 4), around 200 L/p/d (house 5), and from 171 to2,161 L/p/d (house 8). A number of houses are occupied by a single person. The average wateruse over the year in the single occupancy houses was around 110 L/d. However, during the initial56-day monitoring period one person used 200 L/d and another used over ten times that amount(possible reasons for this are discussed in the next section).Water use in relation to seasonal temperaturesThe variability of the population makes it difficult to decipher factors influencing water use.Nonetheless, a comparison of household water use over the year, during a hot period from 21November 2005 to 27 February 2006 (when the average daily maximum temperature was 35.8 o C)and during a cold period from 17 July to 28 August 2006 (when the average daily maximumtemperature was 19.4 o C), shows that of the houses that were undoubtedly occupied on those dates,most show more water use during hot periods (Figure 5.2). More detailed data analysis for onehouse is given in Table 5.4.Figure 5.2: Average daily household water use over the one-year period and during a hot and cold season.Note: A number of houses are frequently unoccupied (hence the average over one year is lower than specific short-term periods) Households have been allocated coded numbers to enable the researchers to scrutinise data, while providing anonymity to the household residents.50 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Table 5.4: Increase in per capita water use at one house in relation to maximum daily air temperatureWater use *Daily maximum temperature ( o C) Period295 L/p/d 15.0 o C – 20.8 o C 17 – 31 July 2006334 L/p/d 23.4 o C – 33.3 o C 26 – 28 September 2005334 L/p/d 23.6 o C – 28.7 o C 10 – 16 October 2005450 L/p/d 30.5 o C – 36.2 o C 14 – 20 November 2005600 L/p/d Nov mean 31.7 o C; highest temp. 40.2 o CDec mean 35.3 o C; highest temp. 45.4 o CJan mean 39.9 o C; highest temp. 44.3 o CFeb mean 35.1 o C; highest temp. 43.7 o C*Source: Bureau of Meteorology 2005; Bureau of Meteorology 200621 November 2005 –27 February 2006Consumptive water use of evaporative coolersAll but two houses are fitted with evaporative cooling systems similar to that shown in Figure5.3. The external component of the coolers can be installed to the side of the house (as shown inFigure 5.3) or on the roof. Where rainwater is collected from the roof for domestic use, evaporativecoolers tend to be installed off the roof. According to the focus group participants the evaporativecoolers are switched on during hot periods, and ‘when people are cooking too—when people arecooking the blowflies come around. They put them [evaporative coolers] on to just blow ’em [theflies] out’.Figure 5.3: An evaporative cooling system at a house in NepabunnaA study conducted in Australia in 2001 (Australian Greenhouse Office 2001) found that 95% ofhomes in Australia use evaporative coolers for their domestic cooling requirements. Figure 5.4illustrates how evaporative coolers function. The amount of water used by evaporative coolersdepends on the dry bulb temperature, relative humidity, speed of operation (i.e. a low or highfan setting), the size of the cooler, and mineral content of the water supply which determines theA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 51

volume of bleed-off water (Karpiscak and Marion 1994). Where a water supply has a low mineralcontent, water can be recycled through the cooler, with the salt water flushed from the systemthrough an automatic bleed-off when salt levels rise too high. Where the water is recycled thesystem will use around 7 L/hour. However, where the water supply has a high mineral contentthe cooler must be operated on a continuous water flow to prevent salt build-up on the pads andinside the cooler system. In Alice Springs evaporative cooler water use in a fully ducted house willbe around 30 L/hour (Power and Water undated). At Nepabunna the evaporative coolers have tooperate with the water running constantly because the high mineral content of the bore water meansthe salt build-up on the filters is extreme (as shown in Figure 5.5).Figure 5.4: Schematic diagram showing how an evaporative cooler functionsSource: Victorian Government Department of Human Services 2001Figure 5.5: The build-up of salts on and below evaporative cooling filters at a house in Nepabunna52 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

In regions with long hot summers evaporative coolers can consume large amounts of water.According to Marshall Environmental Consultants (as cited in Institute of Sustainable Futures2003), 85% of homes in Alice Springs use evaporative coolers, with over half stating that they runthe cooler for 24 hours a day during summer. Summer conditions in Nepabunna are not dissimilarto those in Alice Springs, though in Nepabunna the water supply is more mineralised which resultsin higher water use. In this way conditions are similar to those of Phoenix, Arizona, USA where thehigh mineral content of the water supply means that evaporative coolers operate at the maximumwater use of around 40 L/hour; temperatures in the hottest month range from 37 o C to 43 o C andcooling is needed for around 214 days in the year. Evaporative coolers in Phoenix can consume asmuch as 66.8% of the total summer water use (Karpiscak et al. 1998).Based on a water consumption of 40 L/hour, the evaporative cooling system will use 400 L ofwater between 10:00 am and 8:00 pm. Continuous cooling for 24 hours will consume960 L regardless of whether one person or five people live in the house. The operation ofevaporative coolers may, therefore, partly account for the lack of relationship between the numberof people in a house and the amount of water used. For example, between 21 November 2005and 27 February 2006 – when the mean monthly temperature was above 30 o C and the highesttemperature each month exceeded 40 o C (Table 5.4) – all but three of the occupied houses had anaverage daily water use exceeding 950 L. Presenting water use data on a per capita basis in suchcases conveys a very different water efficiency message. Water use efficiency in this instance isa function of the cooling technology and not indicative of water use behaviour. Figure 5.2, whichshows household water use patterns over different seasons, provides a clearer indication of theimpact of temperatures (due to evaporative cooler use) on water consumption.Sixteen of the 19 occupied houses during November 2005 to February 2006 used water at levelsbetween 955 to 4,084 L/household/d (Figure 5.2). The remaining three occupied houses usedbetween 108 and 220 L/household/day; the variance is explained by more frequent absences and/orthe use of alternative refrigerative-based air conditioning units in the three houses. This raises thequestion of whether evaporative coolers are an appropriate form of temperature control in a waterscarce desert region.New evaporative cooling models may offer improvements in energy and water efficiency over theolder, existing systems; and while alternative, refrigerative air-conditioners may use no water theyadd substantially to the household electricity costs and can be more expensive to maintain (Table5.5). For example, if they are operated for 24 hours a day for a month, the electricity bill for airconditioning alone would amount to $744 (at an electricity rate of $1/hour). Clearly, refrigerativeair-conditioners are not the solution to the problem. The power consumption of evaporative coolersis considerably lower, but even at a rate of $0.05/hour, if evaporative coolers run continuouslyall summer, the electricity costs for cooling alone would amount to $180 (Centre for SustainableArid Towns 2004). Evaporative coolers may be preferred in homes where people keep their doorsopen, or where children frequently open doors (Centre for Sustainable Arid Towns 2004). In someAboriginal settlements in Northern Territory there has been a trend towards installing refrigerativeair-conditioners, which are used on average 250 days a year for both cooling and heating. Anumber of problems have been reported with refrigerative air-conditioners: they account for over50% of the annual electricity costs; they cool only one room (compared with evaporative coolers,which cool the entire house for the same electricity costs), which has led to entire families movingtheir mattresses into the lounge room to sleep in the only cool room in the house (Hoyal and deVries 2006).A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 53

These findings point to the need for appropriate housing design that facilitates passive temperaturecontrol, avoiding the need to operate evaporative coolers for lengthy periods; and other housingfeatures and installations such as robust, hard-metal door and window screens to keep flies fromentering the house (instead of using the coolers to blow the flies out). Passive temperature controlfeatures include appropriate wall and ceiling spacing with insulation, light-coloured roof and walls,north eaves and blinds, shaded east and west walls in summer, no windows on western walls,optimal cross-ventilation, door seals, and appropriate house orientation (Centre for SustainableArid Towns 2004; Pholeros et al. 1993).Table 5.5: A comparison of evaporative coolers and refrigerative air-conditionersItem Refrigerative air-conditioners Evaporative coolersCost of energy for a 150 m 2 house $0.80–$1.00 per hour $0.05–$0.15 per hourWater use at maximum setting Nil 29,760 L per monthCost of water at maximum setting Nil $29.76 per month based on $1.00 per 1,000 LMaintenance Technician is required for maintenance Low technology, low maintenance, can be done by the homeownerPurchase price $4,000–$5,000 for a ducted system A third to half the cost of refrigerative air-conditionersEfficacyCan drop the temperature more than10 o C. For each kWh of electricity used2.5 kWh of heat is expelledTemperature drop is higher in drier climates, but at a humidity of30% and temperature of 35 o C* can drop the indoor temperature byup to 10 o COther Can be used for heating Fresh air is brought into the house from outside which may be ofbenefit to asthma and hay fever sufferersCompiled from Australian Greenhouse Office 2001; Centre for Sustainable Arid Towns 2004; Karpiscak et al. 1998; Northern Territory Power andWater Corporation 2005; Sustainable Energy Development 2003.* These are typical of average conditions in Nepabunna between November and February.Leaks, unmetered water connections and data errorsSome of the unoccupied houses actually showed very low water use (e.g. one litre over a four-dayperiod) indicating occasional use of a garden tap or a possible leak. The community proactivelyprevents leaks by financing three-monthly plumbing checks with maintenance in all the buildings.The total amount of leakage in the settlement reticulation system is calculated by subtracting thesum of the water meter readings (41.8 kL/d) taken at each house and building in Nepabunna, frombore pumping rates over a similar period. This calculation, for the period May 2005 to May 2006,shows that around 2.4 kL/d or 5.6% of the groundwater pumped from the bore is unaccounted for.While the period of collection of groundwater pumping data does not precisely coincide with thatof the individual meter readings, the data were collected over sufficiently long periods of time andmatched for seasonality so as to provide a reasonably reliable indication of water use.The unaccounted water may be attributed to minor errors, unmetered connections or minor leaksfrom the water pipeline infrastructure. For example, the water meter readings for the clinic over the365 day period show some inconsistencies (it is possible that the meter is incorrectly installed) butif water use in the clinic during October/November 2005, and July–September 2006 is indicative,then water use at the clinic is very low: approximately 11 L/d at those times, or 45 L/d over theyear. If there are leaks in the subterranean water infrastructure, given that only 5.6% is unaccountedfor, a loss of that proportion – particularly given the harsh environment – is deemed acceptable.SA Water adjusts consumer meter readings in the Tod-Ceduna system by 10% to account for (andnot charge consumers for) possible leaks. From 1997 to 1998 discrepancies between master andconsumer meter data in the Eyre Peninsula region were as high as 29%; between 2000 and 2003discrepancies ranged between 21% and 29% (Taylor 2003). In Alice Springs leaks account for 6%of total water use, whereas in some Aboriginal settlements in the Northern Territory where there ispoor maintenance, leaks of up to 30% of total water use have been recorded (Hoyal and de Vries2006).54 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Water use in non-residential community buildingsTo obtain total water consumption figures at Nepabunna, the water used in all the communitybuildings (Table 5.6) is apportioned across the resident population and added to the sum ofhousehold meter readings. This adds a further 27.6 L/p/d of water use for the period September–November 2005; 31.6 L/p/d for February–March 2006, 83.7 L/p/d for July–September 2006, and44.5 L/p/d over the year, resulting in a total community water use of 479 L/p/d over the year.Table 5.6: Average daily water use in non-residential buildings at NepabunnaBuildingAverage daily water use (L/day) per building for the period:Sept–Nov 2005 Feb–March 2006 July–Sept 2006 Sept 2005–Sept 2006Office 778 743 4,348 892Work compound 660 1,224 655 1,656Church 290 9 238 121Clinic* 11 na 16 44Women’s group 3 7 na 11*Shower block 0 0 0 0Youth group 0 0 0 0Cultural centre na 6 15 13* Refer to the text for an explanation of possible inconsistencies in the dataThis method is problematic because it assumes only the usual 63 residents use the facilities, but inreality the office hosts variable but mostly large numbers of visitors. For example, there were onaverage 13 visitors each day over the July–September monitoring period. As Table 5.6 shows, thewater use in the office block and work compound is fairly high. It is therefore recommended thatwater-saving technologies be installed in these buildings (as outlined in the ‘Recommendations’ inChapter ten).Current water use in Nepabunna in relation to similar studiesThe average daily per capita water use calculated in this study is compared (Table 5.7) with thefindings of Willis et al. (2004) and Keneally (2004). According to Keneally (2004) water use inNepabunna is 1,090 L/p/d. It is likely that this figure is based on DWLBC bore pumping data, butthis is speculation. It is also not known whether the figure includes an estimate of potable use. Tothe authors’ knowledge individual household water meter readings have not been examined in anyof the previous studies, or collected for any other purpose; this study therefore presents the mostcurrent and detailed account of per capita non-potable water use in Nepabunna.Table 5.7: Average water use at Nepabunna in relation to results from other studiesPer capita water use (L/p/d) Place Source of information435 in houses only;479 in all buildingsNepabunna1090 Nepabunna Keneally (2004)488–836 (for the population rangeof 70–120 people)455 in 2002268 in 2004599 in 2002220 in 2004NepabunnaAdelaide SA Water (2002; 2004)Country towns on SA Water Supply SA Water (2002; 2004)545 average all outback towns, SA All outback towns Keneally (2004)282 Domestic average across Australia ABS (2005)Current study, 365-day period from 26 September2005 to 26 September 2006Willis et al. (2004) based on DWLBC data for a fourmonthperiod between 1999 and 2000A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 55

The figures in Willis et al. (2004) and in Morgan et al. (2003) are based on the data provided bythe DWLBC – the only known data at the time – and provide an indication of total water use bythe settlement as a whole. For example, according to DWLBC 1,755 kL/month of groundwater wasextracted during a four-month period from December 1999 to March 2000. If 2001 ABS Censusdata (53 people) are used to calculate per capita water use, the result is a consumption of 1,147L/p/d, whereas if the lower range of the SAMLISA (2000) population data (70 people) are applied,then water use is 836 L/p/d. If the upper population figure of 120 given by SAMLISA (2000) isused, water consumption is 488 L/p/d. As this example shows, with such a mobile and variablepopulation, statements about water use can be almost meaningless. Our study, however, looks atwater use in conjunction with detailed population data. For example, in a particular household theaverage population over a three-day period may be 6.3 people. In another household the singleoccupant may be present from Monday to Friday only; in that case, water meter readings calculatedover a five-day period will yield different water use results compared with if it were averaged overa seven-day period. This study therefore shows both the general settlement water use over the year(479 L/p/d) and the detail of how and why water use varies (Table 5.2; Table 5.3; Table 5.4; Figure5.2), which provide insights into how and where water can be used more efficiently.The rate of use of the potable supply is unknown. The rate of flow of the rainwater through theultraviolet disinfection plant should be monitored for maintenance purposes (i.e. to know when toreplace the lamps). It is therefore recommended that DWLBC monitor the rate of potable water useas it is the integral component of the settlement’s water resources.Past investigations into alternative water resources forNepabunnaPotential water resource options include a surface storage dam, aquifer storage and recovery(ASR), reverse osmosis, additional drilling for groundwater and rainwater harvesting structures.In 2000 a feasibility study (Clarke et al. 2000) considered whether excess surface flows in thecreek during occasional rainfall events of high intensity but short duration might be directed toa temporary storage area and then pumped into an ASR system. Permanent surface storage isnot feasible at Nepabunna because of the very high rate of evaporation (which exceeds rainfalltenfold) and the potential for salinisation. Martin and Dillon (2002) have looked into the potentialfor ASR in a number of desert regions of South Australia, but it appears as if ASR is not feasibleat Nepabunna because the known aquifer in the region is small and likely to have a low storagecapacity. Detailed recharge-recovery tests on the fractured rock aquifer would be required toevaluate the actual storage capacity. In terms of drilling for new aquifers, previous exploratorydrilling has shown that aquifers in the region are hard to find: they tend to be highly localisedand small. Therefore the cost of exploratory drilling in such unpromising conditions is going tobe high. This means it is unlikely that the government would fund drilling to locate a new aquiferfor an ASR scheme (Clarke et al. 2000). Furthermore, ASR requires an excess amount of waterto be available for recharge. The problem at Nepabunna is that good rains are rare events, whichincreases the risk that many years might pass before the aquifer would be recharged through ASR(Martin and Dillon 2002). For these reasons ASR has not been considered further (S Wurst 2004,pers. comm. ). In 2004 S Wurst was an employee of the Department for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. He is now employed by SA Water.56 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

The technology to improve bore water at Nepabunna is available through reverse osmosis (RO).RO is a technology currently used with success, although at considerable expense ($4.50/m 3 ) tothe provider, at Yalata and Umoona. According to Morgan et al. (2003) RO would be the mostappropriate and cost effective way of rendering the groundwater at Nepabunna potable. Thegroundwater would have to be chlorinated first and then filtered to remove iron, and have antiscalantadded to lower the salinity and hardness of the supply before undergoing RO. Based on2003 pricing, such a scheme would cost around $500,000 for a 90% recovery rate; this excludesthe costs of electrical connections, pumping, effluent disposal infrastructure, storage tanks forthe treated water, project management, delivery, and commissioning fees (Morgan et al. 2003).Depending on the salinity of the water supply, the RO process can result in a sizeable proportionof the water supply being discarded as brine effluent. If RO were implemented at Nepabunnagroundwater extraction would have to increase by a further 15% just to accommodate the wasteeffluent (Morgan et al. 2003).When a water supply for Nepabunna was initially being sought, a number of exploration bores weredrilled in the region but, other than the current two bores used in Nepabunna, they did not find asustainable groundwater resource close by (Clarke et al. 2000). Exploration bores further west ofthe settlement could be revisited to test their feasibility as a supplementary groundwater supply.Results of the contingent valuation studyDuring one of the early discussion sessions with adult members of Nepabunna community, the pastinvestigations into alternative water resource options were discussed. What was apparent was thatthe community was largely unaware of the studies that had been conducted in the past and whycertain options were not feasible. For example, with reference to the existing supply one participantasked:How do you know it’s only going to last 10 years? If they knew that the bore was onlygoing to last 10 years then why didn’t they dig out another bore that’d last for 40 or 50years or something like that? Instead of digging a hole that will last only 10 years.The session served as a forum for the exchange of information and discussion around the sorts ofalternative water resource options the community would like to see implemented in Nepabunna.A range of concerns were raised by the community, but there was an air of despondency amongparticipants about issues that were being raised: ‘We’ve been through this argument 20 years ago… nothing will come of it’. They spoke of the ‘rotten’ water quality of the non-potable supply.Participants related how the possibility of a storage dam was raised ‘10, 15, 20 years ago!’ and theyasked, ‘Where’s the dam they promised?’ These initial discussions enabled the research team tocompile a list of feasible options that the community would be open to discussing in more detail ata later stage in the project.In a subsequent focus group the subject of alternative water resource options and areas for watersavings was raised in a semi-structured manner – three categories of options were opened fordiscussion: alternative water resources (nature’s options), options to lower the use of groundwater(i.e. to improve sustainability of the supply), and water saving options at a household or personallevel. Following the discussion about the types of technologies that could extend the availability ofwater resources to the community, the discussion was guided towards their willingness to pay forsuch improvements. The discussion formed part of the adapted contingent valuation methodology(as outlined in Chapter three).A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 57

Participants were given one brief illustrated fact sheet at a time (Appendix 4) to help generate aninformed discussion on the topic. A brief summary outlining the general cost of the water servicedelivery or improvements was also given. The participants were then asked to comment on theoptions provided (an excerpt from one fact sheet is shown in Box 5.1).If a rainwater catchment system were built (similar to the one shown in Figure 5.6) would eachhousehold be willing to contribute: $5 per fortnight towards the maintenance costs (i.e. around 4% of AARD’s basic costs) some financial contribution towards the basic and maintenance costs, but less than $5, perhaps$………per fortnight some financial contribution towards the basic and maintenance costs, more than $5, perhaps$………per fortnight nothing towards the maintenance, because……………………………………..Box 5.1: An excerpt from the contingent valuation fact sheet provided to the focus group members for discussionModifications to the existing water supply systemOne of the scenarios put to the focus group in the contingent valuation study was to extend therainwater harvesting system to address both the quality and quantity issues of the non-potable watersupply. A schematic diagram of the proposed extension to the rainwater harvesting system is shownin Figure 5.6.Rainwatercatchment fromcovered socialmeeting/BBQ areaStorageCommunityBoreStorageUV processingplantBoreLegendExisting infrastructureStorageProposed infrastructureamendmentsRainwatercatchment frombasketball courtUV processingplantFigure 5.6: Schematic diagram of Nepabunna’s dual reticulation system, with proposed rainwater harvesting extensionSource: After Morgan et al. 200458 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Rainwater alone is not able to meet the water needs of the settlement, although it is thought tosatisfy the potable water requirement. The proposal was for a new large roof area to serve as arainwater catchment and feed into the groundwater storage tanks. This would obviate the needfor additional storage which is an expensive component in a water supply. Rainwater wouldsupplement the groundwater bore supply, reducing the reliance on the groundwater resource andthe amount to be extracted on a daily basis, extending the life of the bores. Nepabunna is notshort of space, and with a large enough catchment surface and existing capacity in its storagefacilities, a rainwater collection structure could provide additional and sustainable water despitethe low rainfall, at reasonable cost to the settlement/government. The shandied mix of groundwaterand rainwater would lower the salinity and hardness of the water, with a concomitant reductionin maintenance costs to pipes, pumps and plumbing fittings caused by the highly mineralisedwater. The additional rainwater could also be isolated from the groundwater supply by feedingdirectly into one of the storage tanks to augment the potable supply if necessary, or to serve as abackup potable supply in the event of a breakdown in the second system, particularly now that adisinfection plant is installed on both supply systems.The main concern with the supplementary rainwater harvesting option was ‘But is it going to rain?We’ve only had about 2 inches of rain this year [2006] and it’s gone half way through the year’.Participants were sceptical that money would be spent on such infrastructure (rainwater harvestingis initially expensive to establish), but added that they would be supportive of the idea ‘if it rains!’Participants favoured a second scenario of drilling new bores to supplement the water supply,although there was concern about dry wells: ‘What if they dig another bore and find no water?’Greater concern was expressed about developments such as tourism: ‘the tourists coming there[to neighbouring Iga Warta] and wasting all that water’. There was concern that ‘If we’re going toshare the water with Iga Warta that wouldn’t last 10 years then’. Some participants added concernsabout the perceived waste of water by mining companies, the tensions due to perceived wastage bytourists at Iga Warta, and suggested that ideally two bores should be drilled – one for Nepabunnaand one for Iga Warta. Alternatively, if only one bore became available there would have to bea metered sharing arrangement. Generally, the consensus was that it is AARD’s duty to provideadditional bores when the existing bores dry up.When the willingness to contribute to a new bore was raised, the immediate response was that$5 per household would not be enough to cover the cost of installing the bores, indicating thatmembers of the community are aware of the expense of such infrastructure. The atmosphere in thefocus group quickly became sombre, with a number of concerns being raised: ‘Why would we payfor water? It’s our country, it’s our land, we’re on it’. There was concern that AARD would notpay for any new developments and that the community will ‘end up paying out of our own pockets’for any improvements. Concern centred on affordability: ‘People haven’t got jobs, people arepensioners’.Community members feel that part of the reason that some people live out in remote settlements isto get away from the economic hardships associated with the cost of living in towns:In town people walk away from their own homes. They can’t even pay rent or stuff likethat … People just walk away. That’s going to happen in the outback. That’s what’sgonna happen out this way. We know people, leaving houses in town, just walking offand living with someone else because they can’t pay for water and power.The despondent resignation on the topic is summarised in the comment, ‘[We] might as well goback and live in a wurlie … somewhere.’A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 59

Water-saving options within the homeIn a third scenario, participants were shown images of a range of water-saving devices such asdual flush toilets, water-efficient showerheads and kitchen aerators (Figure 5.7) commonly used inhomes throughout Australia as a means of reducing water use, and household water costs.Figure 5.7: Images of a dual flush toilet, water-efficient showerhead and kitchen aeratorNote: Images were shown to focus group participantsThe nominal cost of the devices and the potential water savings of each device was summarised ina brief fact sheet (Appendix 4, fact sheet three) and distributed to all focus group participants tofacilitate discussion. For example, the fact sheets mentioned that a dual flush toilet fitting can costaround $30 or less, and save 6.5 L per full flush (i.e. the full flush on a water-efficient toilet usesaround 4.5 L per flush compared with 11 L in some toilets). This water saving option generatedlittle discussion other than the comment by a number of participants that, ‘we’re going backwards’and a generally negative response to the idea. There must have been some misunderstandingbecause a subsequent tour of a few houses in Nepabunna showed the presence of dual flush toilets.Water use statements as a water saving ‘tool’With reference to urban areas only, the NWI (Clause 66(iv)) requires the ‘development of nationalguidelines for customers’ water accounts’ so that householders are given information about theirwater use compared with equivalent households in the area (Environment Protection and HeritageCouncil 2006). In response to this requirement, a draft of the proposed national metropolitaninitiative for customers’ water accounts was released for public comment (on 5 September 2006).In the proposed accounts system, in Brisbane for example, the customer is shown their currentwater use, their use in comparison to the same period the previous year, the local suburb averageand the metropolitan average for the same period (see Figure 5.8). Other examples show simplegraphs of ‘typical’ and ‘efficient’ water use for the number of people and the size of the house(Environment Protection and Heritage Council 2006).60 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Figure 5.8: A proposed Brisbane water accountNote: Account shows comparative water use as outlined in the proposed ‘National guidelines for metropolitan customers’ water accounts’Source: Environment Protection and Heritage Council 2006While the proposed water account system applies to urban areas only, the application of such asystem in Nepabunna was raised with the focus group, not as an invoice, but as a tool that informsresidents of their water use. The statement would be an educational tool to illustrate what anaverage or water-efficient house would use, it would serve as a reminder of the need to save water,and it would simultaneously provide tips on how reductions in water use could be achieved (Figure5.9); the tips or ideas could be varied in successive statements. Participants favoured the waterstatement idea, saying ‘I suppose it will make people think for themselves maybe they’re using tooA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 61

much [water]…’ The community is acutely aware of a lack of rain and the declining water suppliesin the region, commenting: ‘People are talking about Leigh Creek—the dam is running out ofwater. They’re going to use groundwater too, they [were] just talking about it the other day’.In tandem with the idea of a comparative water usestatement as a means of informing residents of theirwater use, the idea of charging only where water use wasexcessive was raised with the community. That is, allhouseholds could, for example, be allocated a free basicallowance of 200 L/p/d. While water use in most of thehouses at Nepabunna is modest and below that of theaverage for South Australia’s outback towns (c.f. Keneally2004) there are a few houses in which occupants use over600 L/p/d; as well as isolated incidents, such as where theoccupants went away and left a tap running in the house (itwas only detected as a result of the water meter readingsand population data being collected as part of this study).In the incident where the tap was left running the averagewater use during that period was 472 L/d, but if the erranthousehold is omitted from the calculations and then theyare adjusted for the population difference, the averagewater use for the settlement is 297 L/p/d. This calculationhighlights how one or two ‘outliers’ can skew the data.While a few members of the community agreed with theprinciple of the suggested water statement – to prevent thewastage of water – it would be difficult to implement fora number of reasons. Firstly, the number of residents andvisitors living in Nepabunna households varies from dayto day. Secondly, it would require employing someoneto regularly read the meters (and note the correspondingpopulation). Thirdly, it could be difficult to implement asone might be seen to be accusing individuals of excessivewater use which could lead to antagonistic relationships.Figure 5.9: The second page of the proposedYarra Valley Water accountNote: The page shows tips and ideas to reduce wateruse as outlined in the proposed ‘National guidelines formetropolitan customers’ water accounts’Source: Environment Protection and Heritage Council2006The community were not averse to the concept of user paysfor water use above a set allocation. However, NepabunnaCommunity Council has a strong sense of equity in itsmany welfare programs. As outlined in Chapter four, theCouncil and Housing Association assists individuals tomaintain health and wellbeing through a program of loansand means tested charges for rent and other services.For example, house rent is means tested at Nepabunna and families can borrow money to purchaselarge household items such as a fridge or washing machine, paying these off over a number ofweeks. In discussion the community were clear that any move to charge individuals for excesswater use would also need to be means tested. This would certainly be the case for families whoseincome came close to that of the hypothetical family.62 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

ConclusionThe average daily domestic per capita water use at Nepabunna (435 L/p/d) is more than that ofpeople living in Adelaide (268 L/p/d), but less than the average in South Australia’s outback towns(545 L/p/d). The figures can, however, be misleading because the average water use in the majorityof the 19 homes is modest (even if it is partly related to frequent absences in some cases), but thereare a few houses where water use is high. Notwithstanding this result, the question of whetherpeople should be ‘penalised’ for excesses related to inappropriate housing design (and coolingsystems) is just one of the ‘technology’ issues that need to be addressed before charging for excesswater use can occur. Other issues, including financial concerns, are discussed in Chapters four andten.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 63

64 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Chapter six: Cost of living at Yarilena and ScotdescoIntroductionThe settlements of Yarilena and Scotdesco were included in the study as examples of settlementsoutside the Commonwealth-State Bilateral Agreement on Essential Services. Yarilena settlementis discussed first, followed by Scotdesco. As with the discussion on Nepabunna, the data from thewater audit is in the following chapter.Construction of a hypothetical familyAs for Nepabunna, the data sources used for the construction of hypothetical families in Yarilenaand Scotdesco were the 2001 Australian Census published by the ABS (2002), data from theNational Aboriginal Health Strategy R3 Project Impact Assessment (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2005),and data gathered during this study as part of the water audit and focus group discussions. Theperiod of data collection was December 2005 to December 2006.Yarilena populationIn terms of the ABS Australian Indigenous Geographical Classification, Yarilena is one of fourIndigenous Locations (ILOCs) which make up the Indigenous Area (IARE) known as Ceduna,namely Koonibba, Tia Tuckia, Yarilena and the remainder of Ceduna District Council area. Atthe time of the 2001 ABS Census, the population of Yarilena was 57, with 95% (54) identifyingas Aboriginal and the remaining 5% (3) being non-Aboriginal (Table 6.1). In 2001 the settlementcomprised slightly more females than males (30 females, 27 males). Data from the NationalAboriginal Health Strategy (NAHS) R3 Project Impact Assessment 2000 supports the ABSpopulation figure and indicates that Yarilena had a population of 57.Table 6.1: Population of Yarilena 2002Aboriginal Non-Aboriginal TotalMales Females Total Males Females Total Males Females Total27 27 54 0 3 3 27 30 57Source: ABS 2002The most recent source of population data comes from the community itself. In July 2006 aresearch assistant in the community indicated that there were 27 males and 30 females in thesettlement giving a total population of 57, showing that there has been minimal change inthe population over the last five years. In this survey the research assistant was only asked todifferentiate between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members of the community if the persondifferentiated themselves.Age compositionTable 6.2 presents the age composition of the Aboriginal population of Yarilena at the time of the2001 Census. The population is relatively young, with the majority of the population (68%) beingchildren and young people under the age of 25. The median age for Aboriginal people at Yarilenais 14. Only 3 residents fell in the 50–54 year bracket. Males outnumber females across all ageA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC65

groups except for the 15–24 year bracket where there are twice as many females as males. Table6.3 presents the age composition of the Aboriginal population of Yarilena in July 2006. Again, thepopulation is relatively young, with just over 60% being children and young people under the ageof 25 but there is a growing older population, with 5 women between 45 and 64 as opposed to nonein the 2002 figures. In 2002 the only age group in which males significantly outweighed femaleswas in the 5–14 year age grouping. This has now changed with females outnumbering males inthe following age groups: 0–4, 25–44 and 45–64. In 2006 females make up 53% of the population,while in 2002 females made up only 38%.Table 6.2: Age composition of the Aboriginal population at Yarilena, 2002Male Female Total0–4 years 6 3 95–14 years 12 4 1615–24 years 3 6 925–44 years 7 6 1345–64 years 3 0 365+ years 0 0 0Total 31 19 50Source: ABS 2002Note: 2001 ABS Census data for Yarilena presents ages for 50 Aboriginal persons only and not the total population of 54 as shown in Table 6.1.Table 6.3: Age composition of the Aboriginal population at Yarilena, July 2006Male Female Total0–4 years 2 7 95–14 years 11 7 1815–24 years 5 2 725–44 years 6 9 1545–64 years 3 5 8Total 27 30 57Source: Community collected data, July 2006Household sizeThe ABS Census 2001 indicates that the mean household size for the Aboriginal populationof Yarilena was 4.2. The non-Aboriginal mean household size was 4.0. At the same time, it isinteresting to note that the corresponding figures for the South Australia north-east IndigenousArea were 3.8 and 2.5 respectively. Therefore the size of households at Yarilena was higher thanthe figure at the regional level for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal households. Although theNAHS data (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2005) did not provide information about the number of peopleliving in each household at Yarilena, the data did indicate that there were 18 habitable houses for apopulation of 56. This results in a population density measure (PDM) of just over 3 (56/18).As part of this study, a member of the community collected data relating to household size. Thisis shown in Table 6.4. Households ranged from one to seven people per household, with only 15houses occupied. On the basis of the population profile and household size, the hypothetical familywas set as two adults and two children, both under 15 years of age.66 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Table 6.4: Household size at Yarilena, July 2006HousenumberNumber ofadultsNumber ofchildren under 15Number of children in15–19 age group1 2 1 02 2 2 03 2 5 14 1 0 05 0 0 06 2 2 07 3 0 08 2 2 09 2 3 010 1 4 011 3 0 012 2 2 013 2 0 014 2 3 015 2 4 0Total 28 28 1Source: Community collected data, July 2006Note: Households have been allocated coded numbers to enable the researchers to scrutinise data, while providing anonymity to household residents.Calculation of the income of the hypothetical familyEmployment opportunities at YarilenaPeople living at Yarilena are engaged in CDEP activities along with mainstream employment.This is shown in Table 6.5 where it can be seen that 50% (10) of the Aboriginal labour force wereparticipants in CDEP at the time of the 2001 Census, while 50% (10) were employed in other areas.There were no non-Aboriginal residents in Yarilena in 2002 or in 2006. Using figures from Table6.5 the labour force status for the population aged 15 years and over can be calculated, and this ispresented in Table 6.6. In this instance, the total population aged over 15 consists of the sum of thetotal number in the labour force and the total number not in the labour force.Table 6.5: Employment of Aboriginal people in Yarilena 2002Males Females TotalEmployed CDEP 6 4 10Employed other 3 7 10Total labour force 9 11 20Not in the labour force 3 0 3Unemployment rate 0 0 0Source: ABS 2002Table 6.6: Labour force status for residents of YarilenaEmployment/population ratioCDEP%OtherProportionnot in thelabour force% % %Total 15+NumberAboriginal 43.5 43.5 13.0 100 23Non-Aboriginal 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0Source: C McCarthy 2005A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 67

Data collected by the community in regard to employment reveals that there has been little changein the employment situation for the Aboriginal population since the 2001 ABS Census. Table 6.7shows that there has been an overall increase of only one person in the labour force and a slightvariation in the composition of the labour force, whereby the number of females has decreasedby one person, while the number of men has increased by two. In addition, the community dataindicate that seven community members are unemployed and in receipt of unemployment benefitsin 2006.Income derived from CDEP and other employment at YarilenaKey sources of income in Yarilena include CDEP participant wages, salaries from mainstreamforms of work, and Centrelink benefit payments. Table 6.8 shows the median weekly incomeat the level of the individual and family for Yarilena and all other Indigenous Locations in theABS Indigenous Area of Ceduna (DC). The table also includes house rental charges, one of theprimary ongoing expenses to be deducted from income. Based on the ABS 2001 Census, the datashown relate specifically to gross income derived from sources such as wages, salary, pensions,unemployment benefits, family allowances, student allowances and maintenance. Family income ismade up of the sum of individual incomes of each resident family member aged 15 years and overwho is present in the household on census night. Family income is not applicable to non-familyhouseholds, such as group households or lone person households; or to people in non-privatedwellings.Table 6.7: Employment in Yarilena 2006Males Females TotalEmployed CDEP 8 2 10Employed other 3 8 11Total labour force 11 10 21Not in the labour force 1 0 1Unemployed 1 6 7Source: Community collected data, July 2006Table 6.8: Median weekly income for Indigenous Locations in Ceduna (DC) IAREIndigenous LocationMedian weeklyindividual income $Median weeklyfamily income $Median weeklyrent $Aboriginal Non-Aboriginal Aboriginal Non-Aboriginal Aboriginal Non-AboriginalYarilena 200–299 n.a. 500–599 n.a. 1–49 n.a.Koonibba 160–199 n.a. 300–399 n.a. 1–49 n.a.Tia Tuckia 160–199 n.a. 600–699 n.a. 1–49 n.a.Ceduna (DC) remainder 160–199 300–399 700–799 700–799 50–99 50–99Source: ABS 2002At the individual income level, Table 6.8 shows that for Aboriginal people Yarilena had a higherincome than other settlements in the same ABS Indigenous Area with incomes in the $200–$299range while the other settlements fell in the $160–199 range. At the family level, the medianweekly income for Aboriginal people in Yarilena was $500–599. Among the other IndigenousLocations in the same Indigenous Area, Ceduna DC remainder, had the highest weekly familyincome ($700–799), followed by Tia Tuckia ($600–699) while Koonibba fell in the lowest rangeat $300–399. In this study, our focus has been on calculating the weekly family income for ahypothetical family. The 2001 ABS Census figures therefore provide an indication of the level offamily income which might be considered reasonable at the time of the study.68 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

House rental charges for 2002 are shown in Table 6.8. Rent paid by Yarilena residents appears tobe similar to other Indigenous Locations ($1–49) except Ceduna ($50–99) which is the major townin the area.The customary economy at YarilenaThere is some evidence arising from discussions in focus groups that recreational fishing is aregular activity in the community and may supplement the weekly diet. However, we have notcalculated this in the weekly income for the hypothetical family because of the difficulty of makingan accurate estimate of the impact of this activity on income.The hypothetical family incomeGiven the population, household size, age profile of children, and the employment characteristicsof the adults, the composition of the hypothetical family at Yarilena is identified as two adults, bothderiving income from CDEP, and two children, one child aged 13 to 15 years and one child under13 years. The hypothetical family receives an income based on current CDEP payments (CDEP Guidelines2005–06) of $206.00 per week (non-remote rates along with a $10.40 CDEP supplement, FamilyTax Benefit Part A and B). On the basis of these payments, the average weekly income for thehypothetical family at Yarilena is estimated to be $609.75 or $31,707 per annum. Details of thesecalculations are shown in Table 6.9. These calculations use Centrelink payment rates applicableduring the period 20 March to 30 June 2006. Residents at Yarilena are not eligible for the CDEPremote rate because of their proximity to Ceduna.Table 6.9: Calculation of the income of the hypothetical family in YarilenaCDEP $206.00 x 2 $412.00CDEP supplement $10.40 x 2 $20.80Family Tax Benefit Part AFor 1 child under 13 yearsFor 1 child 13–15 years$68.53$86.87 $155.40Family Tax Benefit Part B $21.55 $21.55Total weekly income $609.75Establishing the cost of livingTravel, utility and rental costsYarilena is approximately 7 kilometres from the town of Ceduna. According to focus groupparticipants most families at Yarilena have a car for travel to Ceduna for shopping and to dropchildren off at school. Daily return travel to Ceduna for shopping, work or dropping children atschool is approximately 30 kilometres. Ceduna has two supermarkets, and a number of other shops.There are two shops that sell clothes. Residents of Yarilena stated that they try to buy the bulk oftheir clothes at Port Lincoln or Port Augusta and might travel there once every 3 months for thispurpose. Residents also need to travel to Port Augusta periodically for dental treatment and othermedical needs. Ceduna is 400 kilometres from Port Lincoln and 465 kilometres from Port Augusta. It is also reasonable to assume the hypothetical family at Yarilena comprised two adults and two children with both adults on wages, or one adult on a wage, and one on aCDEP. Given that the hypothetical family exercise is meant to provide an estimate of cost of living, only one hypothetical model has been developed. Petrol costs have been estimated with reference to the Red Book, 2006.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 69

A car loan repayment system is generally used to purchase vehicles in Yarilena. For a car loan of$5,000 the repayment rate is $82.76 per fortnight over a three-year period, deducted fortnightlyfrom incomes. Car registration of approximately $146 is paid three-monthly. According to focusgroup participants petrol costs are between $40 and $80 per week depending on car size anddistance travelled. We have used an average of $60 for the hypothetical family for weekly petrol.This estimate covers weekly travel to and from Ceduna, travel to sporting events and periodic tripsto Port Augusta or Port Lincoln for purchases, but does not include travel for dental appointments.An annual sum of $1,040 has been added to cover cost of tyres and repairs. The Mobile AboriginalPatrol picks pensioners up from Aboriginal settlements close to Ceduna including Yarilena to shoponce a week and takes them home again. Yarilena does not have its own bus.Yarilena residents pay full retail costs for electricity at the rate of approximately $30 per week.Households purchase bottled gas as needed, pay phone bills and line rentals, and pay house rentalcosts of $45 per week, $5 of which is allocated to water. Rent is paid to the Community HousingAssociation to cover house maintenance and repairs. These costs are detailed in Table 6.10.Schooling costsFamilies on low incomes are eligible for a School Card. Eligibility for the School Card is generallydependent on the parent, guardian or adult student being able to provide documentation attestingto their income level, for example: Parenting Payment, Single Pension Card or other evidence. Anumber of families at Yarilena send their children to the Lutheran school in Ceduna, where theannual fees are $500 for the first child and $400 per child thereafter. For two children this amountsto a total of $900 per year. An enquiry to the school stated that for School Card holders this wouldbe reduced to $450 per year for two children or $8.65 per week. There is also a public school inCeduna where many families send their children. We have not included private school costs in ourcalculations because of the provision of public schooling close to Yarilena. School Cards cancelout school fees for public schooling.Table 6.10: Selected travel, utility and rental costs for the hypothetical familyItem Cost per week $ Annual cost $Electricity per household 30.00 1,560.00Gas bottles 8.00 420.00Phone (most have STD bar) 20.00 1,040.00Rent 40.00 2,080.00Car repayments 41.38 2,151.76Car registration 11.23 583.96Petrol 60.00 3,120.00Additional car costs (includes tyres and repairs) 20.00 1,040.00Water 5.00 260.00Total 235.61 12,255.72Child care costsChild care for one child at Ceduna Crossways Childcare Centre costs $180 per week for a 50-hourweek, and in focus group discussions some parents indicated that they do use the centre. Whilethe hypothetical family would be eligible for a proportion of the Child Care Benefit which is paiddirectly to the child care centre to reduce the fee charged, we have not calculated an amount forchild care as CDEP participants are paid for a maximum of only 16 hours of work per week. For an ANZ $5000 car loan at a fixed interest rate of 12.49% over three years, repayments will be $82.76 per fortnight. Over a two-year term, repayments will be $115.44per fortnight.70 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Medical and associated health costsPeople receiving family tax benefit Part A and/or Parenting Payment are eligible for a Health CareCard. The hypothetical family at Yarilena qualifies for this. Health Care Card holders pay $4.70 perprescription medicine up to the threshold of $253.80. This represents 54 Pharmaceutical BenefitScheme (PBS) prescriptions, after which point medications are free, providing they are the leastcostly brand on the PBS schedule. Enquiries to the Ceduna Aboriginal Health Service identifiedthat the service provides free pharmaceuticals at the health clinics for Aboriginal people regardlessof whether they hold a Health Care Card or not. Health Care Card holders are also eligible for freeemergency ambulance travel and some transport concessions. There is also a Patient AssistanceTransport Scheme (PATS) which pays for patients to travel to specialist appointments. Patients payan initial $30 and then the scheme pays a kilometre rate for driving to the appointment, or the bus,or a plane fare, if the doctor agrees that this is necessary. In Ceduna there is a school dental serviceand occasionally a visiting dentist but generally adults need to seek dental care elsewhere. PATSdoes not cover the cost of transport for dental care. We have allowed an amount of $252 for petrolper year for two trips to and from Port Augusta for dental treatment (one trip per adult) and $240for four nights accommodation (two per trip). Two nights accommodation have been provided toenable the patient to have one dental appointment and one dental hygienist appointment per year.Medical costs are outlined in Table 6.11. According to the Red Book (2006) a 10-year-old car islikely to use between 9 and 11 litres per 100 kilometres. This would be around $12.60 if petrol was$1.40 per litre. Eye tests are free through Medicare, but prescription glasses average $260 per pairand ideally should be replaced every two years. We have allowed for the replacement of one pair ofglasses every two years, so that every fourth year each adult can buy a new pair.Table 6.11: Weekly and annual medical and associated costs for the hypothetical familyItem Cost per week $ Annual cost $PBS prescriptions up to threshold for one family Nil NilMinimum dental care for two adults 4.61 240.00Glasses–one pair per adult every four years 2.50 130.00Travel and accommodation Port Augusta 9.47 492.00Total 16.58 862.00If patients need to travel to hospital in Adelaide they may be able to claim some accommodationexpenses through the Aboriginal liaison officers at the hospital. Ceduna hospital does not deliverbabies so there is assistance available for mothers to travel to major centres and for accommodationwhile they await the birth of their children. However, it must be realised that such events are notcost neutral, neither to the woman awaiting the birth of her child in a town where she may or maynot have any relatives, nor to the family left at home in Yarilena.Creation of a family menu and costing of items at local storesFocus group members divided items into groups that were bought weekly (Appendix 10),fortnightly or monthly. From the shopping lists, a price survey of supermarket items wasconducted in May 2006 at Ceduna Foodland. Shopping list prices included a food list and ahealth consumables list. The same shopping lists were priced at the Adelaide Pasadena FoodlandSupermarket in May 2006 for comparison. To gain an average weekly cost of food and healthconsumables the cost of items bought fortnightly or monthly have been divided by 2 and 4respectively, and added to the cost of weekly purchases. A varied selection of brands, includinggeneric brands, was included in the shopping lists to reflect the variety of brands that people infocus groups stated that they buy.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 71

The focus group of three women from the settlement stated that the average cost of food shoppingeach week for households would be around $200 with an additional $50 or $60 spent on healthconsumables. In the focus group it was stated that even though some households did not havechildren, their costs were similar as children and grandchildren regularly visit and have somethingto eat at their parents’ or grandparents’ homes. Snacks bought, including school lunches, costhouseholds approximately an additional $15 per week.The estimated spending each week on food, including snacks in town and school lunches, for thehypothetical family was $238.25. The shopping list of food and health consumable items fromCeduna and cost comparisons with Adelaide Pasadena Foodland can be found in Appendix 10, andthe menu from which the shopping list was derived in Appendix 11.Identification of health consumables and health hardwareIn keeping with the Tregenza and Tregenza (1998) methodology, health consumables and healthhardware items have been included in the cost of living of the hypothetical family. Products werecosted at Ceduna Foodland. The estimated cost to the hypothetical family for health consumablesis $61.79 per week. This amount consists of items that are purchased weekly, fortnightly andmonthly. Fortnightly and monthly items were totalled and divided by 2 or 4 before being added tothe weekly purchases. As a result, the weekly expenditure for health consumables was estimated tobe $61.79.Health hardware items are usually purchased at shops in Ceduna. Items less commonly purchased,such as brooms, mops, buckets and cooking utensils, crockery and cutlery are generally purchasedeither at Foodland or at Thrifty Link. Blankets and other bedding are purchased at Great Outdoorsand white goods such as kettles, toasters, refrigerators, washing machines, irons, electric fryingpans and microwaves are either purchased new from Betta Electrical or second hand from OlgaMae’s. Most houses are equipped with a gas heater and stove. White goods are a major expense forhouseholders. The cost for white goods has been estimated with length of life of the item in mindso that the cost of replacement is included. For example new jugs and toasters are estimated to bereplaced every four years, while fridges and washing machines are replaced about every eight yearsif bought new, and every two years if bought second hand. The average cost of health hardware forthe hypothetical family is $15.11 per week. Table 6.12 shows these costs.Clothing costsYarilena focus group participants state that they try to avoid buying clothes in Ceduna as they saythey are expensive. Instead, they travel to Port Lincoln every three or four months, or occasionallyPort Augusta or Adelaide to shop at department stores such as K-Mart and Target. Clothes maybe put on lay-by on these trips and sent to the buyer when paid off. However, they do buy someclothes in Ceduna – particularly items that children may need in a hurry such as sports clothes.Table 6.12: Estimated weekly and annual costs for food, health consumables, health hardware and clothingItem Cost per week $ Annual cost $Food: weekly shop, school lunches, snacks in town 238.25 12,389.00Health consumables 61.79 3,213.08Clothing 30.00 1,560.00Health hardware 15.11 785.72Total 345.15 17,947.80Note: At Yarilena, May 200672 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

An estimation of the weekly expenditure of the hypothetical familyTable 6.13 provides a list of average weekly and annual expenses for the hypothetical familyat Yarilena in 2006. The hypothetical family income at Yarilena is estimated to be $609.75($31,707.00 per annum) with an estimated weekly spending of $597.34 ($31,065.68 per annum)on basic weekly items. This represents 97.9% of the family’s income. These calculations do notinclude travel to funerals, holidays, Christmas and birthday gifts, family celebrations such asweddings, or family related emergencies. Other costs also not included in the budget are purchaseof Austar, but travel to sporting activities is included. Cigarettes, alcohol, household furnishingsand personal care such as hairdressing, are not included. These figures also do not include the costof pets. While it may be assumed that dogs might eat family left-overs, it would be necessary tobuy some dog food either from the supermarket or butcher.Comparison of grocery prices in Ceduna and in AdelaideThe prices for food and health hardware items at Ceduna were compared with prices for similaritems in Adelaide in May 2006. Table 6.14 and Appendix 12 outline the weekly costs of food andhealth consumable items for Yarilena and Adelaide and also give a percentage mark-up on pricesbetween the two localities.Percentage differences in food and health consumable prices between Ceduna Foodland andAdelaide’s Pasadena Foodland showed that:Percentage difference on weekly shopping items was approximately 19.8%Percentage difference on health consumable items was approximately 21.8%Table 6.13: Average weekly and annual expenses for a hypothetical familyItem Cost per week $ Annual cost $Food 223.25 11,609.00Health consumables 61.79 3,213.08School lunches, snacks, weekend sport 15.00 780.00Fuel 60.00 3,120.00Additional car costs 72.61 3,775.72Electricity 30.00 1,560.00Gas 8.00 420.00Phone 20.00 1,040.00Rent 40.00 2,080.00Water 5.00 260.00SchoolChildcareHealth hardware items 15.11 785.72Prescriptions, glasses, dental (plus travel) 16.58 862.16Clothing 30.00 1,560.00Total 597.34 31,065.68NilNilA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 73

Table 6.14: Comparison of costs and percentage differences between Adelaide and YarilenaFood costs $ Health consumables costs $Yarilena total weekly costs for food and non-alcoholicdrinks, (excludes school lunches and snacks in town)Adelaide total weekly cost for similar food excludingschool lunches and snacks in town223.25 Yarilena total weekly cost for health consumables 61.79186.32 Adelaide total weekly cost for health hardware consumables 50.73Difference in weekly costs for food 36.93 Difference in weekly costs 11.06Percentage mark-up for food for Yarilena residents 19.8% Percentage mark-up for Yarilena residents for health consumables 21.8%Note: For weekly food items and health consumables for a family of two adults and two children under 16The impact of additional costs such as water charges on thewellbeing of Yarilena residentsThis analysis has used a hypothetical household from Yarilena. The weekly income has beenderived from CDEP figures and has assumed two adults in receipt of this wage. While this may bean under-estimation of the income of families in mainstream employment, it is an over-estimationof income for those families at Yarilena whose income is limited to either a disability or agedpension who have responsibility for children. The analysis has also confined income estimations tothe family unit, rather than households. While households may generate more than the $609.75 perweek, our research indicates that it is erroneous to assume that household costs are shared equallyby householders in Aboriginal settlements.Approximately 97.9% of income is spent on weekly living expenses excluding any luxuries.However, what is also evident is that while families expend approximately 98% of their incomeon essential food and health consumables, the income set for the hypothetical family is higherthan that set for Nepabunna settlement discussed in Chapter four. While it is a truism that familyexpenses and life-style rise to meet existing income, it is also true that the income and diet forNepabunna residents was sub-optimal. Families at Yarilena consume a healthier diet, with a largeramount of fresh fruit and vegetables than families at Nepabunna. This is due in part to closeproximity to a town with a regular supply of fresh fruit and vegetables and also to a higher incomethan Nepabunna residents. Nonetheless the Yarilena hypothetical household pays nearly 98% oftheir weekly income towards day-to-day living costs and there is little money left each week forluxuries, recreation or saving for emergencies or leisure pursuits. While 50% of families possiblyearn more than the amount of the hypothetical family they may also incur additional expensessuch as child care. This would especially be so for those families in mainstream employment.Assumptions that large extended families provide childcare are misplaced. As Hunter (2002a)notes, these arrangements do not necessarily suit mainstream labour market hours of employment.Excess water costs at Yarilena are met by profits from community enterprises. This is only possiblewhile the enterprise sustains a healthy profit. Over the last two years Yarilena has been payingsignificant amounts for water that has leaked from pipes. This problem is due to factors outside thecommunity’s control – factors related to the pressure incompatibility of their internal pipeline withthat of the SA water mains pipeline, outlined in more detail in Chapter seven. This problem hasstrained the population financially and has meant money has not been available to develop otheraspects of the settlement. The Yarilena residents have worked hard to rectify the situation and havestrived to reduce water consumption. A proposal for the community to reduce existing water relatedcosts is outlined in Chapter seven.74 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Cost of living at Scotdesco: IntroductionScotdesco is located approximately 96 kilometres west of Ceduna. It is a wheat and sheep farmingproperty, but is described as ‘opportunist cropping’ because of the small farm size and unreliablerainfall. There are 14 dwellings. The settlement receives a $134,000 municipal services grant perannum to cover wages for the municipal services officer and their ‘municipal’ services such asmaintaining the water supply, dog control, dust control, rubbish collection, and environmentalhealth programmes. Up until the 2005/2006 budget Scotdesco received $154,000 for these services,but for the 2006/2007 budget they were asked to raise the $20,000 ‘shortfall’ through householdwater charges.Construction of a hypothetical family at ScotdescoThe data sources used for Scotdesco are the 2001 Australian Census published by the ABS, datafrom the National Aboriginal Health Strategy R3 Project Impact Assessment 2005 (ParsonsBrinckerhoff 2005) and data gathered during this study as part of the water audit and focus groupdiscussions. The period of data collection was June 2006 to December 2006.Scotdesco populationIn terms of the ABS Australian Indigenous Geographical Classification, Scotdesco is one offive Indigenous Locations (ILOCs) which make up the Indigenous Area (IARE) known as WestCoast Indigenous Area, namely Scotdesco, Oak Valley, Yalata, Eyre Peninsula and West Coastremainder. According to the 2001 ABS Census, the population of Scotdesco was 57, with 94.7%(54) of these identified as Aboriginal and the remaining 5.3% (3) being non-Aboriginal (Table6.15). In 2001 the settlement comprised more males than females (35 males, 22 females). The ABSpopulation data are further supported by data from the NAHS Project Impact Assessment 2005which indicated that the settlement comprised 55 people.Table 6.15: Population of ScotdescoAboriginal Non-Aboriginal TotalMales Females Total Males Females Total Males Females Total35 22 57 3 0 3 3 35 38Source: ABS 2002In contrast, community collected data (June 2006) for the Aboriginal population shows a significantreduction in this number to a total of 37 people: 22 males, 15 females. At a community meetingin June 2006, the community employed office worker stated that the population is changeablewith people regularly moving to Ceduna and back to Scotdesco. For example, on 17 August2006 the population was 42 rather than 37 according to the office worker. Focus group memberssuggested that this population movement was associated with people following CDEP work. Thismeans that when this work is available at Scotdesco there is a population influx with people fromother settlements taking up the opportunity for work. This is supported by NAHS Project ImpactAssessment 2005 data which reports that there were 71 participants in CDEP, 55 being Scotdescoresidents, while the remainder were from other settlements.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 75

Age compositionAt the time of 2001 ABS Census, the age composition of the Aboriginal population of Scotdescofeatured a predominance of adults with only a small number of young children present in thesettlement, specifically six children in the age group 0–14 (Table 6.16). Indeed, the median agereported by the ABS for the settlement in 2001 was 33 years. Overall, males outnumber femaleadults in the settlement. Further data relating to age composition was collected by Scotdescosettlement members in August 2006 and is presented in Table 6.17. It can be seen that the numberof children in the settlement remains low.Table 6.16: Age composition of the Aboriginal population at Scotdesco, 2002Male Female Total0–4 years 0 3 35–14 years 3 0 315–24 years 12 3 1525–44 years 15 6 2145–64 years 3 6 965+ years 3 3 6Total 36 21 57Source: ABS 2002Table 6.17: Age composition of the Aboriginal population at Scotdesco, 2006Male Female Total0–4 years 0 1 15–14 years 0 0 015–24 years 7 3 1025–44 years 9 6 1545–64 years 4 3 765+ years 2 2 4Total 22 15 37Source: Community collected data, August 2006Comparing Tables 6.16 and 6.17 shows that most change has occurred in the 15–24 and 25–44year age brackets. While the number of females has remained the same in these age groups, thenumber of males in the 15–25 year age bracket has decreased by 42 % while males in the 25–44year age bracket have decreased by 40 %. These ages represent the greatest number of people inthe workforce and reflect perhaps the seasonal nature of work, and the fact that people (particularlymales) come to Scotdesco for short periods for employment but may not stay permanently.Household sizeThe ABS Census 2001 indicated that the mean household size for the Aboriginal population ofScotdesco was 2.6. Although not providing a specific measure of household size, NAHS data(Parsons Brinckerhoff 2005) indicated that the population of 55 was spread across 14 housesthereby resulting in a population density measure of 3.6 (55/14).The data shown in Table 6.18 present a detailed picture of the composition of households atScotdesco in June 2006. Based on this data, it is possible to calculate a mean household size of 2.3people. However, more in-depth examination reveals that the composition of households is highlyvariable and suggests that for the purposes of this study it would be useful to consider the incomescenario generated from three hypothetical family compositions:76 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

1.2.3.two adults and no children under 15 years of agethree adults and no children under 15 years of ageone adult and no children under 15 years of ageTable 6.18: Household size at Scotdesco in June 2006House number Number of adults Number of childrenaged under 15 yearsNumber of childrenaged 15–19 years1 3 0 02 3 0 13 1 0 04 2 0 05 2 0 06 1 0 07 1 0 18 1 0 09 3 0 010 3 0 111 3 1 112 3 0 113 1 0 014 1 0 015 1 0 016 2 0 0Total 31 1 5Source: Community collected data, June 2006Calculating the income of the hypothetical familyEmployment opportunities at ScotdescoEmployment opportunities for Aboriginal people at Scotdesco are generated predominantly byCDEP. Table 6.19 shows that 90% (26) of the Aboriginal labour force were participants in CDEPat the time of the 2001 Census and a further 10% (3) were employed in other areas. Children in the15–19 age group appear to be in the labour force. More recent data collected by the community isshown in Table 6.20. Again it indicates that there is continued reliance on participation in CDEPfor employment.Table 6.19: Employment of Aboriginal People in Scotdesco 2002Males Females TotalEmployed CDEP 14 12 26Employed other 3 0 3Total labour force 17 12 29Not in the labour force 6 3 9Unemployment rate 0 0 0Source: ABS 2002A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 77

Table 6.20: Employment in Scotdesco 2006Males Females TotalEmployed CDEP 16 11 27Employed other 2 0 2Unemployed 2 1 3Total labour force 20 12 32Not in the labour force 2 2 4Source: Community collected data, June 2006Income derived from CDEP and other employment at ScotdescoKey sources of income in Scotdesco include wages derived from CDEP or mainstream forms ofwork, and Centrelink benefit payments. Table 6.21 provides a comparison of the median weeklyincome at the level of the individual and family for Scotdesco and the other Indigenous Locationswithin the Indigenous Area (IARE) of West Coast. Individual weekly income indicates the grossincome derived from sources such as wages, salary, pensions, unemployment benefits, familyallowances, student allowances and maintenance, that a person usually receives each week. Familyincome is the sum of individual incomes of each resident family member aged 15 years and overwho is present in the household on census night. Family income is not applicable to non-familyhouseholds, such as group households or lone person households; or to people in non-privatedwellings. Individual incomes are collected as ranges in the census. To enable these range valuesto be summed, information from the Survey of Income and Housing Costs, which collects incomeas individual values, is used to estimate the median income within each bracket collected by thecensus. The relevant median value for each family member is then summed to produce the familyincome figure.Table 6.21: Median weekly income for Indigenous Locations in the West Coast Indigenous AreaIndigenousLocationMedian weeklyindividual income $Median weeklyfamily income $Median weeklyrent $Aboriginal Non-Aboriginal Aboriginal Non-Aboriginal Aboriginal Non-AboriginalScotdesco 160–199 n.a 500–599 n.a. 1–49 n.a.Oak Valley 160–199 800–999 300–399 1500–1999 1–49 n.a.Yalata 160–199 700–799 400–499 1200–1499 1–49 1–49Eyre Peninsula 200–299 300–399 600–699 600–699 100–149 50–99West Coast: remainder 120–159 400–499 400–499 700–799 n.a. 50–99Source: ABS 2002At the time of the 2001 ABS Census, the individual income level at Scotdesco was $160–199.Similarly, the two other small Aboriginal settlements in the West Coast IARE, Oak Valley andYalata, shared this median weekly individual income. In addition, Aboriginal people living inCeduna, the closest major service centre to Scotdesco, had a weekly median income level of $160–199 so the individual income situation for all these settlements falls within the same range.The median weekly family income level for Aboriginal people varies significantly across theIndigenous Locations in West Coast IARE. Scotdesco had a median weekly income of $500–599which is higher than Oak Valley ($300–399), Yalata ($400–499) and West Coast remainder ($400–499). The Indigenous Location of Eyre Peninsula has the highest median weekly family income at$600–699. Aboriginal people living in Ceduna have a median weekly family income of $600–69978 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

as well. House rental costs, one of the primary ongoing expenses to be deducted from income, arealso shown in Table 6.21. In Scotdesco, the rent paid by Aboriginal people falls at the lower end ofthe scale ($1–49) reflecting the lower income levels in the community.The customary economy at ScotdescoAt Scotdesco the weekly diet is supplemented through seasonal hunting trips. Animals huntedinclude kangaroo, sleepy lizard, wombat, fish and lobster. Hunting contributes regularly toindividual’s diets, but it has not been counted in income, nor have the costs of hunting such aspetrol, gun licences and ammunition been costed. When talking about hunting, one member of afocus group said that hunting contributed to residents’ ability to eat a healthy diet, but that the typeof food available varies with the seasons.The hypothetical family incomeCalculations for the hypothetical families used CDEP rates as outlined in the CDEP Guidelines2006–07 and Centrelink payment rates from the Guide to Australian Government Payments 20September to 31 December 2006.As Scotdesco falls within the Australian Taxation Office Special Zone B each person also receivesa remote area allowance. The remote area allowance rates are: $18.20 per fortnight (for oneadult); $15.60 per fortnight for each person (couple rate); and $7.30 per fortnight for each child(dependant rate).For the hypothetical family structure of two adults deriving income from CDEP with no children,the total income is $507.22 per week as shown in Table 6.22.Table 6.22: Calculation of the income for hypothetical family 1CDEP $235.41 x 2 $470.82CDEP supplement $10.40 x 2 $20.80Remote area allowance $7.80 x 2 $15.60Total weekly income $507.22Household 2: Where the household consists of 3 adults who are CDEP participants (single) and nochildren, the total income is $764.73 per week as shown in Table 6.23Table 6.23: Calculation of the income for hypothetical family 2CDEP $235.41 x 3 $706.23CDEP supplement $10.40 x 3 $31.20Remote area allowance $9.10 x 3 $27.30Total weekly income $764.73Household 3: Where the hypothetical household is one adult deriving income from CDEP and nochildren, the total income is $254.91 per week as shown in Table 6.24.Table 6.24: Calculation of the income for hypothetical family 3CDEP $235.41 $235.41CDEP supplement $10.40 $10.40Remote area allowance $9.10 $9.10Total weekly income $ 254.91A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 79

Establishing the cost of living for hypothetical family 1 (twoadults on CDEP)Travel, utility and rental costsScotdesco residents pay for electricity, water, gas, telephone, rent and purchases of householdgoods as well as fuel and car costs. According to focus group participants most households atScotdesco have a car for travel to Ceduna for shopping, but there is also a community bus that takespeople shopping once a week at no cost to the individual. Most households do a large supermarketshop at Foodland once per week. Households also buy health consumables fortnightly at CedunaFoodland. All householders pay $45 per week for rent and $5 water charges for the primaryhouseholder. Additional householders pay $10 each per week towards water costs. Table 6.25 is anapproximation of regular expenditure per household for utilities, based on information gained fromScotdesco community members in focus groups. Most householders have car repayments, and onaverage the petrol costs would be about $56 per household per week (Table 6.26). These costs donot include travel for medical reasons.Medical and associated health costs for hypothetical family 1All of the hypothetical households at Scotdesco are eligible for a low-income Health Care Card.According to the Ceduna-Koonibba Aboriginal Health Service, Health Care Card holders areeligible for free emergency ambulance travel and some transport concessions (including the PATSscheme). We have allowed an amount of $252 for petrol per year for two trips to and from PortAugusta for dental treatment (one trip per adult) and $240 for four nights accommodation (two pertrip). The travel expenses have been costed in the same way as for Yarilena, and travel costs basedon rates given in the Red Book (2006)—the results are given in Table 6.27. We have allowed forthe replacement of one pair of glasses every two years so each adult can buy a new pair every fouryears.Table 6.25: Selected utility costs for household 1Item Cost per week $ Annual cost $Electricity per household 23.00 1,196.00Gas bottles 6.92 360.00Phone 20.00 1,040.00Rent (same rent for all dwellings) 45.00 2,340.00Water 15.00 780.00Total for utilities 109.92 5,716.00Table 6.26: Travel costs for hypothetical family 1Cost per week $ Annual cost $Car repayments 41.38* 2,151.76Car registration 11.23 583.96Petrol 56.00 2,912.00Additional car costs including tyresand repairs20.00 1,040.00Total for travel 128.61 6,687.72* For an ANZ $5000 car loan at a fixed interest rate of 12.49% over 3 years, repayments will be $82.76 per fortnight.80 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Table 6.27: Weekly and annual medical costs for hypothetical family 1Item Cost per week $ Annual cost $PBS prescriptions up to threshold for household Nil NilMinimum dental care for two adults 4.61 239.72Glasses–one pair per adult every four years 2.50 130.00Travel and accommodation Port Augusta 10.01 520.52Total 17.12 890.24Creation of a family menu and costing of items at local storesWeekly menu and shopping listThe method of compiling a weekly menu (Appendix 13) and shopping list (including healthconsumables, Appendix 14) was consistent across the four settlements in the project and was basedaround what people in the focus group stated that they and their family ate, and guided by theAustralian Guide to Healthy Eating (AGHE) serve sizes. The nearest supermarket for Scotdescoresidents is Ceduna Foodland.Survey of the cost of food for the weekly menuWeekly food costs at Scotdesco came to $135.22, health consumables to $33.66 (Table 6.28) andclothing to $20 per week. As for the other settlements in this study, where focus group participantsstated a particular brand for an item these brands have been priced. If brands were not specified avaried selection of brands including generic brands have been priced. Items from the shopping listwere priced at Ceduna Foodland and the Adelaide Pasadena Foodland Supermarket in September2006 (Table 6.29).Table 6.28: Comparison of costs between Adelaide and ScotdescoWeekly food costs(excluding school lunches and snacks in town) $Weekly health consumables costs $Scotdesco 135.22 Scotdesco 33.66Adelaide 119.65 Adelaide 26.45Difference in weekly costs 15.57 Difference in weekly costs 7.21Mark-up for food for Scotdesco residents 13.0% Mark-up for health consumables for Scotdesco residents 27.2%Note: For weekly food and health consumables for hypothetical family 1 (two adults)Health hardware costsHouseholders are responsible for purchase of their own white goods. For heating, most householdsuse wood fires and gas for cooking. They may supplement wood heating with electric heaters.Some houses have reverse cycle air conditioning. Refrigerators and washing machines are boughtsecond hand from Olga Mae’s (Ceduna) or if households can afford new ones they will bepurchased for $800–$1000. Second hand white goods last a few years while new ones last around10–15 years for refrigerators and up to 10 years for washing machines. Televisions can be boughtfor between $300–$500 from Betta Electrical or Retravision in Ceduna. Pots and crockery arepurchased at Thrifty Link (Ceduna) or second hand. Linen is bought at Home Scene (Ceduna) orsecond hand.The weekly income for hypothetical family 1 at Scotdesco was estimated to be $507.22 with anestimated basic weekly spending on essentials of $474.65 (Table 6.30); this leaves $32.57 or$16.29 per person per week. The estimated life of white goods differed between communities.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 81

Table 6.29: Comparison of total supermarket costs for hypothetical family 1Scotdesco weekly total cost of food and health consumables for hypothetical household 1 (2 adults) $168.88Adelaide total weekly cost of food and health consumables $146.10Difference in weekly costs $22.78Percentage mark-up in Ceduna 15.6%Table 6.30: Average weekly and annual costs for the hypothetical family 1Item Cost per week $ Annual cost $Food and health consumables 168.88 8,781.76Snacks in town 15.00 780.00Car costs 128.61 6,687.72Rent 45.00 2,340.00Water 15.00 780.00Electricity 23.00 1,196.00Gas 6.92 360.00Phone 20.00 1,040.00Health hardware items 15.12 786.22Prescription medicines, glasses, dental 17.12 890.24Clothing 20.00 1,040.00Total 474.65 24,681.94Cost of living for hypothetical family 2 (three adults)Hypothetical family 2 comprises three adults. The way the prices were determined in the previoussections (for two adults) does not differ, but in the sections to follow the same costs are multipliedby three rather than two. Table 6.31 shows the income of the three-adult family, while Tables 6.32and 6.33 show their expenditure on utilities and travel costs.Table 6.31: Income of hypothetical family 2CDEP $235.41 x 3 $706.23CDEP supplement $10.40 x 3 $31.20Remote area allowance $9.10 x 3 $27.30Total weekly income $764.73Table 6.32: Selected utility costs for the hypothetical family 2Item Cost per week $ Annual cost $Electricity per household 34.50 1,794.00Gas bottles 10.50 540.00Phone 20.00 1,040.00Rent 45.00 2,340.00Water (+10.00 per additional person) 25.00 1,300.00Total for utilities 144.90 7,534.00Table 6.33: Scotdesco travel costs for hypothetical family 2Item Cost per week $ Annual cost $Car repayments 41.38 2,151.76Car registration 11.23 583.96Petrol 56.00 2,912.00Additional car costs including tyres and repairs 20.00 1,040.00Total for travel 128.61 6,687.7282 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

The amounts for electricity and gas have been increased by a third but telephone and rent areunchanged. Water costs an extra $10 for an additional person. Travel costs the same for the one,two or three person households as car costs and registration are the same and the distance to travelfor shopping is the same. Food and health consumable costs, the cost of health hardware, medicalcosts (Table 6.34) and clothing have been increased by a third (for the additional person). Theincome of three adults on CDEP was estimated to be $764.73 with an estimated basic essentialweekly spending of $627.70 (Table 6.35). This leaves a surplus of $137.03 or $45.68 per personper week. Tables 6.36 and 6.37 provide a comparison of expenses between Scotdesco and Adelaide.Table 6.34: Weekly and annual medical costs for hypothetical family 2Item Cost per week $ Annual cost $PBS prescriptions up to threshold for household Nil NilMinimum dental care for three adults 6.92 359.84Glasses: one pair per adult every four years 3.75 195.00Travel and accommodation Port Augusta 15.02 781.04Total 25.69 1,335.88Table 6.35: Average weekly and annual expenses for hypothetical family 2Item Cost per week $ Annual cost $Food and health consumables 253.32 1,3172.64Snacks in town 22.50 1,170.00Car costs 128.61 6,687.72Rent 45.00 2,340.00Water 25.00 1,300.00Electricity 34.50 1,794.00Gas 10.40 540.00Phone 20.00 1,040.00Health hardware items 22.68 1,179.36Prescription medicines, glasses, dental 25.69 1,335.88Clothing 30.00 1,560.00Total 627.70 32,639.60Table 6.36: Comparison between Adelaide and Scotdesco of costsScotdesco total weekly costs for food excludingschool lunches and snacksFood costs $ Health consumables $Adelaide total weekly cost for similar food excludingschool lunches and snacks in town202.83 Scotdesco total weekly cost for healthconsumables179.49 Adelaide total weekly cost for healthhardware consumablesDifference in weekly costs 23.34 Difference in weekly costs 10.80Percentage mark-up for food for Scotdesco residents 13.0% Percentage mark-up for Scotdescoresidents for health consumablesNote: For weekly food and health consumable items for hypothetical family 2 (three adults)50.4939.6927.2%Table 6.37: Comparison of total supermarket costs for hypothetical family 2Scotdesco total weekly market costs for hypothetical household 2 (three adults) $253.32Adelaide total weekly market costs $219.18Difference in weekly costs $34.14Percentage mark-up in Ceduna 15.6%Note: And percentage difference between Adelaide and Scotdesco pricesA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 83

Cost of living for hypothetical family 3 (comprising one adult)One adult living at Scotdesco will earn around $254.91 per week (Table 6.38). The amount spenton electricity and gas has been halved because one person generally lives in a smaller dwelling thanlarger families. The amount for telephone has remained unchanged, as has rent, which at $45 perweek, is uniform throughout Scotdesco (Table 6.39). A single person household pays $5 a weektowards water. Travel costs (Table 6.40) are likely to be similar regardless of the number of peoplein the household.Table 6.38: Income of hypothetical family 3 (one adult)CDEP $235.41CDEP supplement $10.40Remote area allowance $9.10Total weekly income $254.91Table 6.41 outlines typical medical costs for an adult living in Scotdesco. It is estimated thatweekly expenses for an adult living at Scotdesco is around $331.63 (Table 6.42), which exceedsincome ($254.91, Table 6.38) by $76.72. To live within their means a person living alone atScotdesco would need to forego some of the previously listed items. For example, if a single persondid not have car expenses then their weekly expenses would amount to $203.02 per week leaving asurplus of $51.89.Table 6.39: Utility costs for one adult at ScotdescoItem Cost per week $ Annual cost $Electricity per household 11.50 598.00Gas bottles 3.46 180.00Phone 20.00 1,040.00Rent 45.00 2,340.00Water 5.00 260.00Total for utilities 84.96 4,418.00Table 6.40: Travel costs for one adult at ScotdescoItem Cost per week $ Annual cost $Car repayments 41.38 2,151.76Car registration 11.23 583.96Petrol 56.00 2,912.00Additional car costs (tyres and repairs) 20.00 1,040.00Total for travel 128.61 6,687.72Table 6.41: Medical and associated costs for one adult at ScotdescoItem Cost per week $ Annual Cost $PBS prescriptions up to threshold for household Nil NilMinimum dental care for one adult 2.31 120.12Glasses: one pair every two years 1.25 65.00Travel and accommodation Port Augusta 5.00 260.00Total 8.56 445.1284 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Table 6.42: Average weekly and annual expenses for one adult at ScotdescoItem Cost per week $ Annual cost $Food and health consumables 84.44 4,390.88Snacks in town 7.50 390.00Car costs 128.61 6,687.72Rent and water 50.00 2,600.00Electricity 11.50 598.00Gas 3.46 180.00Phone 20.00 1,040.00Health hardware items 7.56 393.12Prescription medicines, glasses, dental 8.56 445.12Clothing 10.00 520.00Total 331.63 17,244.84*Food costs have been calculated to be half the cost of the two person household.Percentage of household income spent on basic essentials andcomparative costs with AdelaideStatistics from the ABS Household Expenditure Survey (HES) 2003–2004 (ABS 2005) indicatethat households ranked as having the lowest 20% of income spend approximately $412 per weekon goods and services. As we noted in the section on Yarilena, the significant factor for Aboriginalhouseholders is the higher number of people per house. While the data suggest that this varies forScotdesco, the figures demonstrate that those in single households do not earn enough to meetessential living costs. This HES report notes that households that rely on government pensions andallowances on average spend $455 per week on goods and services (ABS 2005, p. 5). The overallincrease in the household expenditure for goods and services between 1998–1999 and 2003–2004was $184. Of significance to the Scotdesco community is the 32% increase in domestic fueland power and the 26% increase in petrol costs. Scotdesco community pays full retail price forelectricity. Appendix 15 provides a comparison of the costs between Scotdesco and Adelaide.Table 6.43: Weekly expenses for each hypothetical family at Scotdesco and percentages of weekly incomeHousehold 1: 2 adultsWeekly income: $507.22Cost perweek$% of familyincomeHousehold 2: 3 adultsWeekly income: $764.73Cost perweek$% ofhouseholdincomeHousehold 3: 1 adultWeekly income: $254.91Cost perweek$% ofhouseholdincomeFood and non-alcoholic beverages 135.22 26.7 202.83 26.5 67.61 26.5Snacks in town 15.00 2.9 22.50 2.9 7.50 2.9Health consumables 33.66 6.6 50.49 6.6 16.83 6.6Fuel 56.00 11.0 56.00 7.3 56.00 22.0Additional car costs 72.61 14.3 72.61 9.5 72.61 28.5Electricity 23.00 4.5 34.50 4.5 11.50 4.5Gas 6.92 1.4 10.40 1.4 3.46 1.4Phone 20.00 3.9 20.00 2.6 20.00 7.8Rent 45.00 9.9 45.00 6.5 45.00 17.7Water 15.00 2.0 25.00 3.9 5.00 2.0Health hardware 15.12 3.0 22.68 3.0 7.56 3.0Medical 17.12 3.4 25.69 3.4 8.56 3.4Clothing 20.00 3.9 30.00 3.9 10.00 3.9Total $474.65 93.5% $627.70 82.0% $331.63 130.2%A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 85

The impact of additional costs such as water on the wellbeing ofScotdesco residentsThe data illustrate that between 52.8% and 86.5% of household income for the hypotheticalhouseholds is expended on food, health consumables and transport (household 1: 61.5%, household2: 52.8%, household 3: 86.5% – see Table 6.43). Water costs paid by individual communitymembers account for 2 to 4% of household income. While people in Scotdesco who participatedin focus groups stated that they ate well and their menus suggest this is the case, little incomeremains. Single person households fare the worst as expenses for housing and transport are thesame as for larger families where costs are shared between two or three people. It is difficult toimagine how single person households do survive with the expenses they incur each week unlessthey do without major items such as a car. This must pose difficulties due to the distance ofScotdesco from Ceduna.86 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Chapter seven: Water use at Yarilena and ScotdescoIntroductionThis chapter presents the findings for two settlements: Yarilena and Scotdesco. The settlementswere included in the study for comparative purposes because their water payment arrangementsdiffer from Nepabunna. Yarilena and Scotdesco pay for their water, and the costs related to theirwater supply impact on their wellbeing. The second research objective, which applies to the twosettlements, was to ‘promote wellbeing through a reduction in utility stress associated with waterservices’.This chapter begins with a brief overview of the nature and quality of the water supply systemat Yarilena. The main focus of the chapter is an analysis of the water consumption data andthe implications of the findings for Yarilena. A brief discussion of the water supply and use atScotdesco is given in the latter part of the chapter. Scotdesco had a minor role in the water usecomponent of the study, but given its water supply problems warrants discussion.Water supplyYarilena receives water from the Tod-Ceduna supply system that also services Port Lincoln,Ceduna and other towns across Eyre Peninsula. The Tod-Ceduna supply is a fragile resource.The following quotes highlight how not much has changed between 1909 and 2006 in terms ofconstraints on development as a result of the paucity of water resources in the region:The principal drawback to the occupation of Eyre’s Peninsula has been the absenceof a good water supply and the difficulty of providing one.(South Australian Parliamentary Papers 1909 as cited in Twidale and Smith 1971).The economy of the Eyre Peninsula will suffer unless more water is found.(Clarke 2005).Eyre Peninsula’s water supply was first developed in 1916 for the purpose of expanding theagricultural sector on Eyre Peninsula. It began as a surface water scheme from the Tod River.The Tod River, the only stream on Eyre Peninsula with reliable flows, proved to be a limitedsupply, however, and in 1945 groundwater from the Uley-Wanilla Basin (near Port Lincoln) wasfed into the Tod system. Since 1945 there have been a number of upgrades to the Tod trunk main(Hammerton 1986), and additional groundwater basins across the Eyre Peninsula tapped to form theTod-Ceduna supply (Taylor 2003). In 1996 the Tod-Ceduna supply was extended west of Cedunato Denial Bay and 14 kilometres east of Penong, in what is referred to as the Ceduna-Koonibbapipeline. Water services in Ceduna are administered by SA Water, but the supply to the west ofCeduna is administered by the District Council of Ceduna, and overseen by a board comprisingrepresentatives from the District Council of Ceduna, Koonibba Aboriginal settlement, Penong, FarWest Corporation and local farmers.In 2003, as a result of ongoing concerns over the rising salinity of water feeding into theTod Reservoir, and the failure to meet the drinking water quality guidelines for a number ofparameters, the Tod Reservoir with its average salinity of over 2,000 mg/L was taken off line.To reduce the salinity of the surface water supply, SA Water conducted a cost-benefit study of aA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC87

number of options, including a pilot desalination pilot plant at the reservoir (Taylor 2003). Thestudy concluded, however, that desalination is the ‘least viable option’ due to the high energyrequirements (ABC News 2005a). The supply now comprises mostly groundwater from a numberof small, localised aquifers of varying salinities, accessed across Eyre Peninsula. The salinity ofthe water reaching Ceduna is around 891 mg/L, but has at times reached 1,500 mg/L. Although thewater meets Australian Drinking Water Guidelines in terms of its salinity and disinfection, it isdeemed unpalatable by locals who comment ‘a lot of people say its drinkable [but it has a] yuckytaste’ (Willis et al. 2004).The billing system for waterAs with other properties in Ceduna, Yarilena receives SA Water services to the property boundary.Up to 2005/2006, as with the rest of Ceduna, the cost of the first 125 kL of water was $0.44 andthereafter $1.03 per kL; in 2006/2007 the price increased to $0.47 and $1.09 respectively. The 125kL basic allowance is quickly exceeded as the settlement comprises 15 houses (not one house)and therefore experiences some disadvantage compared to a single property in Ceduna where thesame billing system is applied. The tiered billing system is also applied to other multiple householdAboriginal settlements such as Davenport. Yarilena receives one bulk bill for water, and through aninternal arrangement each household pays $5 per week towards water, regardless of their water use,as part of their house rent deduction ($40 for rent, $5 for water, as a single $45 deduction).Water use at YarilenaUnlike the Nepabunna water use data which have a detailed record of the corresponding residentpopulation in each household at the time of the water meter readings, Yarilena data do not.However, as shown in Chapter six, over the last five years the population has barely changed. Watermeter readings from each house are available for a period extending from 24 November 2004 to 19July 2006 (20.5 months, or 624 days), mostly on an ad hoc basis. During this period readings weretaken in November 2004, then monthly between January and April 2005. Readings resumed on 19April 2006, with eight sets of readings over a three-month period ending on 19 July 2006. The dataprovide an indication of water use over a sufficiently long period to accommodate brief periodicabsences, and provide an indication of seasonal water use. Table 7.1 summarises the average dailyper capita domestic water use over the 20.5-month period, during intensive measurement periodsand interval periods. The current population of 57 is used in the calculations. The average per capitawater use over the 624 days is 208 L/d which is lower than that of Adelaide (268 L/d) and SouthAustralia’s country towns (220 L/d) as shown in Table 5.7 (Chapter five), although the latter twofigures do not include use of rainwater, which is likely to be small in Adelaide. If one adds estimatedrainwater use to the mains consumption of 209 L/p/d at Yarilena, the total water use is likely to besimilar to that of country towns.Table 7.1: Average daily per capita domestic mains water use at YarilenaAverage water use (L/p/d)Period over which the water use was calculated208 624 days from 02 November 2004 to 19 July 2006364 97-day period from 02 November 2004 to 07 February 2005174 34-day period from 15 June to 19 July 2006167 14 days from 15 to 29 June 2006 (intensive)192 8 days from 19 to 27 April 2006 (intensive)146 4 days from 02 to 06 May 2006 (intensive)Note: at various times of the year and over a 624-day period88 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Table 7.2 summarises the per capita water use on a household basis. If one excludes the twohouseholds that consistently use the most water from the calculation, the average water use in theremaining 13 houses over the 624-day period is 130 L/p/d. Table 7.2 shows the variation in wateruse between the houses, but highlights that the majority of houses use low quantities of mainswater. For example, houses 3 and 6 use only 72 and 64 L/p/d (of mains water) respectively. If thetop two water-using households are excluded from the calculations, the water use for summer andwinter is 134 L/house/d and 133 L/house/d respectively (as shown in Figure 7.1); where ‘summer’is represented by the period 02 November 2004 to 07 February 2005 (97 days); and ‘winter’ a 34-day period from 15 June to 19 July 2006.The current use of rainwaterWith the exception of two houses that have one rainwater tank, each house at Yarilena has two18,925 L (i.e. a total storage capacity of 37,850 L) polyethylene rainwater tanks plumbed into thehousehold reticulation to reduce their dependence on the mains water supply. The two houses withone rainwater tank are occupied by one, or at the most two, people and their water requirements aremet by one tank. Although the roof capacity has the potential to collect more rain, this would besuperfluous to the needs of the occupants (but not the community at large).The rainwater tanks are connected to the mains water supply so that occupants can use rainwaterprimarily. There is an automatic mains water feed into the tank so that when the rainwater supply isalmost exhausted the pump automatically feeds water from the mains supply into the tanks. In thisway the household never runs out of water, but rainwater is used as a first preference. The toiletand laundry are directly linked to the mains water supply (as opposed to the rainwater tank) toprevent any backflow of toilet water into the tank should the water pressure drop.In addition to household rainwater collection, the office and garage complex has three 20,820 Lrainwater tanks (i.e. a total storage of 62,459 L), but the roof can harvest more rain than this. Thiscomplex, which is not linked to the mains supply, does not use much water. Excess rainwater iscollected from the office block and carted to replenish any empty household tanks.The community use rainwater for their potable supply and have not experienced any associatedhealth problems. However, following a recent health scare when a dead animal was found in arainwater tank in Ceduna, the community asked the Aboriginal Health Council at Ceduna to testtheir rainwater tanks for bacterial contamination, but were told that the sampling could not bedone because there were no sample bottles. In the past Aboriginal households could have theirtanks tested, free of charge, and the results of the tests were given to the families within a day. Itis therefore recommended that this necessary health service be reinstated, particularly given thecommunity’s use of rainwater as their potable supply.Table 7.2: Average daily per capita mains water use in the fifteen houses at YarilenaHouseWater use(L/p/d)HouseWater use(L/p/d)HouseWater use(L/p/d)1 283 6 64 11 2912 128 7 1078 12 5563 72 8 179 13 3264 101 9 108 14 805 202 10 109 15 144Note: Over the 624 days from 2 November 2004 to 19 July 2006 Households have been allocated coded numbers to provide anonymity to residents.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 89

12000Water use (L/d)100008000600040002000Long-term averageHot seasonCool season01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15House codeFigure 7.1: Average daily household water use over the 20.5-month periodNote: Period covered a hot season (November 2004 to February 2005) and a cold season (June to July 2006). House 8 was vacant for a large part ofthe monitoring periodPassive and active temperature control features in houses at YarilenaUnlike Nepabunna, none of the houses at Yarilena use evaporative coolers for householdtemperature control, which is apparent in the seasonal water use patterns (Figure 7.1). Refrigerativeair-conditioners are used in all the houses and are mostly reverse cycle air-conditioners. Reversecycle air-conditioners have the advantage of providing both heating and cooling and do not usewater. The cooling process occurs when the refrigerant extracts heat from the air inside the house,the heat-charged refrigerant then passes through into a condenser unit which releases the heatexternally. The process is reversed when heating is required, and is effective even when the outsidetemperature is cool (Sustainable Energy Authority 2004).During the peak summer period when cooling is needed at Yarilena, the electricity bill escalatesaccordingly. The air-conditioners can be operated on an ‘economy’ cycle to reduce electricitycosts. Despite using refrigerant-based cooling, the weekly electricity expenditure averaged overthe year at Yarilena was $10 less than that at Nepabunna ($40/week), as discussed in Chaptersix. The lower electricity bills at Yarilena may be partly attributable to the use of solar panels intheir hot water system (Figure 7.2). The solar panels (which were bought through a CommunityGrant) are an example of the sorts of sustainable housing design features that should be standardinstallations in all Aboriginal housing, particularly as Ceduna (and places like Nepabunna) receivean average of 8–9 hours of sunshine a day (Bureau of Meteorology 2006b). Water heating accountsfor 30–35% of the energy use in most South Australian (and Australian) households (Departmentfor Transport, Energy and Infrastructure undated; Solahart® 2007). Solahart® claims that inplaces like Ceduna and Adelaide (which it regards as ‘temperate zones’) the amount of energyused in water heating can be reduced by up to 90% by installing an efficient solar water heatingsystem (model Solahart 302Kf Free Heat). Additional savings (from reduced electricity costs) areavailable through installing solar panels using a state government scheme which provides a rebateof up to $700 (depending on the size and model of the system installed), and through the receiptof Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) that are given to the purchaser when they reduce their90 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

electricity demand by converting to a form of renewable energy (in this case, solar). A solar panelon an average house will typically amount to around $800 worth of RECs. The RECs are usuallyused to ‘offset’ (or reduce) the cost of the solar panels, and administered by the company doing thesale of the systems (Solahart® 2007). Additional external passive cooling features in the housesat Yarilena include light coloured roofs to reflect solar radiation, extensive use of shade cloth andwide verandahs around the houses to protect the houses from direct sunlight, and trees adjacent tothe house to provide wind protection and shading (Figure 7.2).Figure 7.2: Active and passive temperature control features on houses at YarilenaNote: Features include solar panels, reverse cycle air-conditioners, vegetation and shade cloth barriers, and light coloured roofing to reflect solarradiation.Although Ceduna experiences hot summers, Yarilena enjoys a locational advantage, experiencingcooling sea breezes off the Great Australian Bight. For example, the sea surface temperaturein summer (January to March) ranges between 18–23 o C (Commonwealth of Australia 2005a),A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 91

which has a moderating effect on air temperatures in close proximity to the coast. The averagedaily maximum temperatures in Ceduna over summer, based on over 84 years of data (Bureauof Meteorology 2006c), are below 30 o C. Specific mean maximum temperatures are 26.6 o C inDecember, 27.5 o C in January, 26.3 o C in February and 26.4 o C in March. During these monthsthe average number of days exceeding 35 o C are 5.4, 5.9, 3.9, 4.8 respectively, and on average,temperatures exceed 40 o C only 1.7 days in December, 3.3 days in January and 1.3 days in bothMarch and April (Bureau of Meteorology 2006c). The use of trees and shade cloth barriers at thehouses (Figure 7.2) therefore serves a dual purpose of shading the house and protecting it from thestrong winds and fine coastal sands.The impact of leaks on the communitySA Water charges Yarilena according to the meter reading taken at the mains connection at thesettlement boundary at the corner of Eyre Highway and Denial Bay Road. Unlike most suburbanproperties, where the pipeline between the mains connection at the property boundary and thehouse is less than 100 metres, houses on the extensive property at Yarilena are widely scattered,requiring around 5 kilometres of internal subterranean piping from the SA Water meter at theproperty boundary. The community is responsible for maintaining and covering the costs associatedwith the extensive internal infrastructure. The first occurrence that alerted the community to thepossibility of leaks in their system was in 2004, when they noticed that their water costs wereincreasing despite little change in their water use. It was at this point that the community startedreading household water meters to clarify the situation.Comparing the mains meter reading with the sum of the household meter readings for the sameperiod provides an indication of the magnitude of the leaks. For example, over the 20.5-monthperiod there is a 57% discrepancy between the meter readings; that is, 57% of the water that thecommunity is being charged for is ‘unaccounted’ for. A small portion of the ‘unaccounted’ watermay have been used in the office (for which there is no water use data); however, most of thewater is lost through leaks in the system. The leaks were investigated by a team from SA Waterand FACSIA in February 2006. Besides some damaged valve pits, the main cause of the breaksin the system was the lack of capacity of the pipes within the settlement to accommodate the highpressure flow from the mains supply. This led to pipes bursting under the elevated pressure. Highpressure within a water system allows multiple users to access a strong flow of water at the sametime; if the water pressure within a system is too low, when multiple users attempt to access watersimultaneously they receive a ‘trickle’ flow from their taps. To solve the problem of pipes burstingunder the pressure at Yarilena, it was recommended that pressure reducing valves be installed inthe system (SA Water 2006a).The community has paid for the installation of a number of isolation and pressure-reducing valvesalong their extensive infrastructure and isolated a 1.5 kilometre length of piping to a lone houseaway from the main cluster of homes on the property. These actions have reduced the leaks to someextent. For example, the meter readings in June 2006 show a 41% water loss. While the leaks areless, the quantity of water being lost, and for which the community is paying, is still unacceptablyhigh. At the household level, the community has been proactive in preventing leaks. To preventleaks, a member of the community has installed corrosion resistant reseating kits (with a 100-yearwarranty) in all the taps in all the houses. To use plumbing services for this would have cost a fewhundred dollars per house.92 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

To address the infrastructure problems Yarilena is currently considering moving off the SA Watersupply on to the Ceduna-Koonibba pipeline. This move would cut out 1.5 kilometres of problematicinternal piping and a new 800 metre length of piping will be installed from the Ceduna-Koonibbapipeline on Denial Bay Road to the central cluster of houses, with a second direct link to anisolated house on the corner of the property. Pressure reducers will need to be installed on thenew system to prevent the same pipe bursts that have occurred on the existing system (G McLean2006, pers. comm. ). The District Council of Ceduna would then become the service provider forYarilena. Even though Yarilena receives an adequate service from SA Water, they entered the1996 Ceduna-Koonibba Agreement as a ‘backup’ arrangement, should it be required, and they havepaid $1,200 each year for that privilege (i.e. they have not received any services for this payment,merely the right to access the Koonibba pipeline at any stage in their future); for that reason thesum was reduced to $800 per annum (which equates to $15 per week). A move onto the system willmean the higher access fee will resume, and the basic water charge (per kL) is marginally higher.Appropriate water saving strategies for YarilenaAdditional water resources available to the community include additional rainwater harvesting,greywater reuse, and a coastal soak (shallow groundwater) on the property. Each of these options isdiscussed briefly.The potential to use more rainwaterThe maximum amount of rainwater that can be collected from each house at Yarilena wasdetermined using the equation given in Australian Government (2004), as discussed in Chapterthree. In Yarilena houses have a roof area of around 288 m 2 . The long-term rainfall, measured atthe Ceduna post office by the Bureau of Meteorology and based on 84.3 years of records, is 292mm a year. Applying the formula to the data, and assuming an 85% efficiency rating, shows thateach house has the potential to collect 65,606 L of rainwater each year. This amounts to 21% ofthe water use, assuming a use of 209 L/p/d (the long-term settlement average), although Table 7.2shows that in some households (house 6) mains water use is as low as 64 L/p/d. The differencebetween the amount of rainwater that can potentially be collected from each roof, and the presentstorage capacity, shows that an additional 27,756 L of rainwater can be harvested from each roof.Further, evidence from one house (house 6 [see Table 7.2]), with four occupants, shows thatrainwater (collected at the house and carted from the office tanks) provides almost 100% of thehouseholds water requirements, with mains water only used in the laundry and for toilet flushing.As mentioned previously, the office block has the storage capacity for 62,459 L of water, and canharvest slightly more than this amount. The excess rainwater is carted to houses, freeing up tankspace to harvest the maximum amount of rain from the roof.The capacity to harvest more rain, together with the accumulating water debts being paid for outof the community’s trust fund, prompted them, with the help of the research team, to apply for anadditional rainwater tank at each house through a Commonwealth Community Water Grant. Due tothe success of the grant announced in November 2006, an additional 225,960 L of rainwater can beharvested (with a concomitant reduction in the community’s water costs). Project review and client manager, Remote communities, SA Water, Adelaide.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 93

As part of the Community Water Grant application, first flush diverters (shown in Figure 7.3),backflow prevention, gutter guards, mosquito proof screens and overflow devices will be installedon the rainwater tanks where they are not currently present. While this water saving amounts toonly 5% of the household water costs, the rainwater tanks provide a long-term low maintenancesolution; that is, the community can reap a 5% saving each year for the life of the rainwater tank.In addition, there will be the added incentive to live solely on rainwater, with further cost savings.A greater reliance on rainwater indirectly benefits the region by reducing the amount of water thatwould otherwise be taken from the stressed Tod-Ceduna supply.P.J. Coombes and GKuczeraFigure 7.3: Schematic diagram of a rainwater tankNote: Diagram shows first flush diverters, debris and vermin screen, backflow prevention and overflow devices.Source: Commonwealth of Australia 2005bThe potential to use greywaterYarilena has a septic tank effluent disposal (STED) system for their wastewater. Effluent undergoesprimary treatment in the household septic tank, then wastewater from the septic tank dischargesinto a fenced off wastewater lagoon (Figure 7.4) where it is naturally exposed to solar radiation,and treated with chlorine through an automatic feed every 12 hours to kill the bacteria. Thetreated effluent was used to water a line of trees (Figure 7.4) extending around the main clusterof houses; however, the system is no longer operational. New piping and a larger capacity pump,preferably solar powered, are needed to reinstate the water reuse system. It is recommended that thecommunity apply for Natural Heritage Trust funding or another Community Water Grant for thispurpose.Other water resource optionsThe previous federal government’s Parliamentary Secretary for Water, Malcolm Turnbull wasof the opinion that, given the decrease in rainfall since 2001, water options unrelated to rainfallshould be considered. Furthermore, Turnbull commented that ‘there are no cheap new sources ofwater’ (ABC South Australia 2006). In the past few years there has been some discussion about thepotential of a desalination plant at Ceduna. In the search for a water supply for Kimba on the EyrePeninsula, SA Water considered a desalination plant at Ceduna; but, as with the pilot plant at Tod94 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

eservoir, concluded that desalination was not an appropriate technology at this time due to its highenergy requirements. They consider the development of this technology ‘too early … to be used toaddress Eyre Peninsula’s water crisis’ (ABC News 2005a). Desalination remains a controversialtopic, with others disagreeing with SA Water’s stance. The state government and BHP Billiton arecurrently considering desalination at Whyalla and Roxby Downs.Figure 7.4: The greywater holding lagoon and treatment plant at YarilenaNote: The proximity of the native vegetation highlights the potential for greywater recycling.In the early days at Yarilena (1945 and before), a coastal soak (Figure 7.5) on the property provedan adequate water supply for the 100 people and regular visitors living on the property, andremained operational into the 1970s. One of the participants in the focus group recalled how asyoung children they would be sent with two buckets strung across a yoke to collect water from thesoak:… my mother would ring a bell, like one of those cow bells, and we would have to stopwhatever we were playing and come running from wherever to collect the water. Eightbuckets a day – four buckets in the morning and another four in the evening – wouldmeet the water needs for the family of eight … At that time we used waterless pitlatrines.As reticulated supplies and roof-harvested rainwater became available, the use of the soakdwindled. There is still water in the soak, but before it could be used again it would need to becleaned out, a sand-resistant submersible pump installed, and piping laid a few hundred metresacross the undulating dunes to the neighbouring houses. The expense of bringing the well intoproduction is therefore not justified, particularly as it would only serve as a supplementary supplyand its sustainable yield is unknown.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 95

Figure 7.5: The disused coastal soak at YarilenaNote: A tyre marks the position of the well to prevent vehicles driving over the well which is at the edge of a road track. A metal structure extends afew metres below the surface to keep the surface of the well open.Concluding statement for YarilenaYarilena residents are an outstanding example of a community that has done everything withintheir power to be a water efficient community. Besides water efficiencies, Yarilena residentsprovide on-the-ground evidence of sustainable living using technologies appropriate to the regionalconditions. Examples of the technologies employed include the use of solar panels, extensiveuse of rainwater, revegetation using recycled water and passive temperature control features onhouses. The predominant water problem at Yarilena is the result of factors outside of their control:the incompatibility of pressure specifications of the internal subterranean water pipeline with thatof the SA Water mains; a problem which has proved to be a considerable drain on their financialresources. One of the aims of this study is to identify ways of reducing costs associated withwater use and thereby to promote wellbeing through a reduction in utility stress. This project willachieve this to a small extent with an anticipated 5% cost saving as a result of extending householdrainwater collection through a successful Community Water Grant. Additional potential for savingswill be identified in a water audit. The greatest effect will be the accumulation of water and costsavings arising from their implementation of sustainable water saving strategies.Water supply and use at ScotdescoWith the exception of the single mens’ quarters, which rely solely on rainwater, all dwellings areconnected to a settlement water reticulation system that provides desalinated groundwater from asingle bore within a desalination plant (Figure 7.6). There are eleven houses, two sheds convertedinto living quarters, the original homestead (now disused), and a caravan with extensions that areconnected to the desalinated water supply. Only the eleven houses have water meters. The metersmonitor use from the desalinated supply, but are not often read.96 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Figure 7.6: The desalination plant, which houses the bore at ScotdescoMost of the houses have two tanks, one for rainwater collection (for cooking and drinking), anda second tank connected to the desalination plant to provide for all other water needs. Excessrainwater overflows into the desalinated water tank, where a booster pump and float valve ensurethat the tank is always at least half full so that at no time will a household run out of water.According to SA Water (2006b) the water storage capacity at the dwellings varies from 21,000L at two dwellings to a maximum of 42,000 L at six houses; however, given the roof area thereis the capacity to collect an additional 416,000 L of rainwater from the dwellings alone – that is,excluding the equipment and storage sheds.Water consumption data are limited. Based on data collected over a six-day period from 17–23August 2006 at ten houses, water use amounted to 141 L/p/d. Extrapolating this use across thepopulation equates to a use of around 1,904 kL each year, and possibly more as the population isquite variable (as discussed in Chapter six). Given the short duration of the data (e.g. it may nothave included a weekly clothes wash in the six-day period), and that water use might be lower inAugust (the time of the data collection) than the hot summer months (although this is not alwaysthe case), if water use were assumed to be 200 L/p/d (an amount similar to that used by countrytowns across South Australia, and Yarilena), settlement water requirements would amount to 2,701kL per annum. Water use could therefore be between 1,904 and 2,701 kL per annum, but moredetailed monitoring over a longer period and across different seasons is required.The rainfall in the region is low – Scotdesco lies between Fowlers Bay where the rainfall is 299.8mm per annum and Ceduna where the rainfall is 292 mm per annum. In 2005, generally a dry yearacross north-east South Australia, 212.5 mm of rainfall was recorded at Scotdesco. Based on theequation given by the Australian Government (2004), and assuming a roof capacity of around 220m 2 , a rainfall of 299.8 mm, and an 85% collection efficiency, each house will collect around 51,575L of rainwater each year, or 141 L/house/d. Applying the lower rainfall (212.5 mm) recorded in2005 would yield 35,250 L each year, or 97 L/house/d. The roof area does vary between dwellings,A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 97

anging from 40 m 2 at a converted shed to 325 m 2 (for the sole four-bedroom house). If anoccupancy of two adults is applied, based on a consumption of 141 L/p/d and a rainwater collectioncapacity of around 141 L/house/d, the household collection of rainwater can provide at the most50% of a household’s water needs during average rainfall years, and 34% in dry years such as in2005. Therefore, during drought periods (experienced at the time of this study) the reliance on thedesalinated groundwater supply is greater. The desalinated supply is required year-round.Problems with the desalinated water supplyGroundwater, without desalination, is not a feasible water resource at Scotdesco due to the highTotal Dissolved Solids (TDS) content of 28,600 mg/L; by comparison, sea water is on average35,000 mg/L. Untreated, the groundwater is unsuitable for stock watering, and could only be usedfor toilet flushing, but even that can cause corrosion of the cistern (Anderson and Cummings1999). According to SA Water (2006b) the iron and silica content of the groundwater is also high,at 42.1 and 63.0 mg/L respectively, which causes clogging of the reverse osmosis membranes. Asa result of the poor groundwater quality the membranes have a life span of around six months, asopposed to an expected three years. Every six months the community pays $12,000 for a set of fourmembranes. Based on the membrane replacement costs and other maintenance costs and powercosts, SA Water (2006b) estimated that it costs around $25/kL desalinated water. By comparison,people in Ceduna who are on the Tod-Ceduna scheme currently pay $0.47/kL for the first 125 kLand thereafter $1.09/kL. The continuing problems and expense of operating the desalination plant isproving an emotional and financial drain on the community’s wellbeing. Due to the poor quality ofthe groundwater, the expense of maintaining the desalination plant appears to be unsustainable forthe community.Additional water resources available to ScotdescoThe alternative water resources available to Scotdesco are limited to groundwater and rainwater.Even if new bores of a better quality than the current bore were accessed, the groundwater in theregion is of a poor quality; therefore, the groundwater is still likely to need desalination if it is to beused for non-potable domestic requirements. If a better quality groundwater supply were available,it would reduce the rapid turnover of the reverse osmosis membranes, but the plant would stillhave high annual operating costs. In addition, the complexity of the technology means that whenthe desalination plant has technical problems, there is not ordinarily a cheap or quick solution astechnicians have to be flown in to install new parts. The overriding problem is the poor quality(high salinity and iron content) of the groundwater. A better quality groundwater supply is unlikelyto be found in the region. Given these problems, and the fact that this study is directed at findingways of reducing settlement water costs, the discussion on additional water resources is limited torainwater harvesting.The potential role of additional household rainwater collection and large-scaleground-based rainwater harvestingAs discussed earlier, on average, there is scope to install an additional 27,000 L rainwater tank oneach of the houses at Scotdesco. An aerial view of a core group of buildings at Scotdesco (Figure7.7) shows the extensive roof area of buildings and the scope for more rainwater tanks—with theexception of the TAFE and office block (the hexagonal-shaped building marked by the letter E inFigure 7.7) which has four rainwater tanks.98 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

DECBAFigure 7.7: An aerial view of a core cluster of buildings at ScotdescoNote: This image highlights the extensive roof area of sheds (A, B, C) and a house (D) and the scope for more rainwater tanks, with the exception ofthe TAFE and office block (E) which already has four large rainwater tanks.In response to a request from AARD in June 2006, SA Water conducted an appraisal of the watersupply options for Scotdesco; one of the recommendations is that rainwater be harvested froma two-hectare ground-based catchment (SA Water 2006b). In terms of saving Scotdesco money,engineered ground-based rainwater harvesting (RWH) catchments have very high capital costsand therefore such an option would have to be externally financed. However, in general themaintenance costs are low and simple, and the lifespan of a ground covering such as high densitypolyethylene (HDPE) plastic lining, even in harsh semi-arid conditions is around 15 years.Comparing the replacement and long-term maintenance costs of desalination plants with largescale RWH shows that the latter is a more cost effective and sustainable solution. RWH is a lowtechnology solution that the settlement can maintain, and is therefore more suited to its remotelocation where technical consultants from water supply agencies are not on hand.The advantages and disadvantages of RWH for another Aboriginal settlement—Koonibba,located in a low rainfall region 55 kilometres to the east of Scotdesco, are detailed in Pearce et al.(2005a) and Pearce at al. (2005b) respectively. Ground-based RWH (Figure 7.8) supplementedthe Koonibba water supply that came from the SA Water administered Kalambi main, which alsoserved a number of private landholders in the region. The Kalambi water supply was discontinuedA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 99

in the late 1990s with the advent of the Water West system (the Ceduna-Koonibba pipeline). Inaddition to the ground-based RWH, rainwater was collected from a conglomeration of settlementbuildings and stored in steel ground storage tanks. When there was plentiful rainfall it was pumpedto a small overhead tank and reticulated throughout the settlement. When this rainwater system wasbeing used, the Kalambi water was isolated from use if the northern storage tanks were full, or keptonline until the tanks were full and then isolated. The large-scale roof-based collection system wasextensively upgraded in 1992/1993 but has more recently fallen into a state of disrepair and is nolonger used (J Kavanagh 2007, pers. comm. ).Figure 7.8: The former ground-based rainwater harvesting catchment at KoonibbaNote: The rainwater harvesting catchment area is in the background, with the storage tank in the foreground. Koonibba Aboriginal settlement is on thewest coast of South Australia.The benefits of RWH for domestic and agricultural supply in semi-arid regions is well documentedinternationally (Rees et al. 2000; Thomas 2000; Hartung 2002; Martinson and Thomas 2003).Furthermore, RWH is known to provide a vital water supply during periods of drought (Mou1995; Mourits and Kumar 1995), where public supplies are unreliable (Hartung 1999), or as anemergency supply (Perez 2002). While widely accepted internationally, RWH is also receivingrenewed interest in Australia. In the early 1900s rainwater runoff was collected from localised,impermeable granite outcrops in Eyre Peninsula for domestic and small-scale stock watering. Lowconcrete walls channelled the runoff from the foothills of the outcrops to built-up or undergroundstorage structures, some of which were covered with corrugated iron roofing (similar to that shownin Figure 7.8) to prevent contamination and losses through evaporation. Many of the rainwatercatchment systems continued to provide a supplementary, and freshwater supply into the early1970s (Twidale and Smith 1971; Twidale et al. 1985). Similarly, there is evidence of wide useof engineered catchment RWH on farms in Western Australia since the 1950s (Laing 1981;Richardson et al. 2004), but more recent use, if it occurs, is not well documented. It may be, asin the case of Eyre Peninsula, that when reticulated mains water supplies became available, therainwater harvesting schemes were abandoned. Concern over the ongoing decline in rainfall acrossparts of South Australia, and fears about the paucity of regional water resources, has however, Formerly of DOSAA, now a consultant for SA Water, FaHCSIA and other organisations.100 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

enewed interest in large scale RWH. Ground-based RWH is now being undertaken or consideredon properties on Boston Island near Port Lincoln, Wistow in the Adelaide Hills, Kimba (SA Water2006b), and the region west of Ceduna (G McLean 2006, pers. comm. ).Following a meeting with the Koonibba Aboriginal community in 2003, where they expressed adesire to reinstate their former RWH scheme due to concerns held about the paucity of the regionalwater resources, Pearce et al. (2005a) examined the feasibility of RWH there. The amount of waterharvested varies depending of the material used to cover the ground surface, for example, highdensity, durable plastic (HDPE) has a runoff efficiency between 57–76%, whereas asphalt surfaceshave a runoff efficiency of 81% (Li et al. 2004). Pearce et al. (2005a) found that depending on thetype of material used Koonibba can collect between 5,472 and 5,832 kL of rainwater annually,from a 24,000 m 2 (2.4 hectare) area.Applying the maximum runoff efficiency rating for high density plastic (76%; Li et al. 2004),the rainfall at Scotdesco (299.8 mm), and the 2 hectare area (20,000 m 2 ) suggested by SA Water(2006b) results in a collection of 4,557 kL of water at Scotdesco annually. Based on a water useof between 1,904 and 2,701 kL/annum, this would satisfy the water requirements of the settlementduring normal rainfall years. The larger-than-necessary catchment size (of 20,000 m 2 ) wouldallow for some contingency during slightly drier years. In average rainfall years, excess harvestedrainwater could allow the community to develop bush tucker plantings, one of their expresseddesires. The expansion of the settlement is currently limited by their water supply. The watersavings would, therefore, also have the potential to sustain a slight growth in the population ofScotdesco.While much has been written in favour of RWH, not all studies tout the success of RWH projects(Perez 2002; Sharma 2002). There are factors that can make RWH unattractive to settlements(Pearce et al. 2005b); for example, rainwater harvested from ground-based catchments is notsuitable for direct potable use, and may require some form of disinfection prior to use forshowering.The potential role of composting toiletsSome members of the community expressed a desire for waterless toilets outside the houses. Thereare two reasons for this: firstly, to save water; and secondly, when there are power failures (whichoccur frequently) occupants cannot flush the toilet once the cistern has emptied. According toWaterCare (undated), a ‘typical’, older-style three-bedroom household with three occupants usesaround 41,800 L each year for toilet flushing, or 13,933 L/p/year. Assuming an occupancy of twopeople, this equates to 27,866 L of water used in each house every year. Based on the current costsof desalinating the water supply ($25/kL), this means that each year a house uses $697 worth ofwater on flushing toilets. Applying this calculation to the population of Scotdesco (37 people x13,933 L/p/year x $25/kL = $12,888) reveals that each year around $12,888 is spent on flushingtoilets. Installing dry toilets at each dwelling would offer a low maintenance, sustainable, long-termmeans to reduce water use. The saving of $12,888 would not be limited to just one year, but wouldbe saved every year for the life of the toilet; over many years this would accumulate to a sizeablesaving to the community. It is recommended that the community investigate the cost of installingcomposting toilets at each household and apply for a Commonwealth Community Water Grant tofund the endeavour. It is a sustainable, water saving strategy that highlights the proactive behaviournecessary for sustainable living in desert regions. SA WaterA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 101

Modern technology has significantly improved the appearance, design (Figure 7.9) and operationof composting toilets to provide odour-free, hygienic, low maintenance toilets that do not use anywater. Composting toilets appear in upmarket eco-lodges; for example, Jemby Rinjah in the BlueMountains, New South Wales, which charges around $250 per night, has composting toilets intheir eco-lodges. While the toilets may appear the same at the surface, the capacity of the belowthe-floorprocessor comes in a range of sizes to suit the size of the household. According to ClivusMultrum®, the composting toilet works in the same way as a garden compost bin. In the toiletsystem the waste breaks down through a natural process of organic decomposition. No chemicalsare added, and the decomposition process is facilitated by adding small amounts of organicmaterial (such as garden clippings or wood shavings) to the compost processor (Figure 7.9). Theair vents (Figure 7.9) ensure that the waste in the compost processor is adequately aerated to ensureodourless decomposition. The toilet is low maintenance. The toilet bowl requires the same level ofcleaning as a regular toilet bowl (only using a biodegradable cleaning agent). The Clivus Miltrum®design keeps the old and new compost separate, so that the fully composted material can be easilyaccessed. The end product (finished compost) is safe to handle after being in the processor for ayear or more. It looks and smells like ordinary garden compost and can be used in the garden.At Scotdesco all dwellings are on septic tank systems that drain locally (as opposed to a STEDscheme), so there is no scope for recycling of water. Apart from new water resources, ‘additional’water can only come from further efficiencies and water use savings in and around the home.TOILETToilet room ventedwhen seat openVentRain CoverFanVentFloorInspectionDoorComposting WastesCompostaccessFinishedcompostCOMPOST PROCESSORExcessliquidDrainFigure 7.9: The Clivus Multrum® composting toiletNote: This schematic diagram shows the above and below-the-floor functional components of a composting toiletConcluding statement for ScotdescoThere are limited water resource options available to Scotdesco due to its location and poorregional groundwater quality. Of the options available, large-scale ground-based RWH and the useof composting toilets appear to be sustainable solutions. While these options are appropriate tothe locational constraints, they are not cheap. The community does not have the means to acquirethe technology, so it is recommended that the community apply for a Commonwealth CommunityWater Grant and other outside agency funding to install these technologies. The importance ofcommunity engagement in decision-making when RWH is being considered as a water supply102 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

option has been highlighted in a study by Perez (2002) in Mexico. The findings of Perez (2002)are perhaps pertinent to Scotdesco, as the community feels that the RWH option ‘is being forcedupon us’. It is therefore recommended that the community familiarise themselves with the RWHprocess and its advantages and disadvantages; enquire further about the long-term maintenancecosts and life of the engineered RWH catchment; visit areas and speak to the landholders whereRWH is operational; and hold community discussions on the topic, so that the community makea fully engaged and informed decision on whether to proceed with RWH. If the RWH technologyis installed, as a self-funding settlement, the monies collected through household water paymentswould need to be used for day-to-day maintenance and long-term replacement costs of the watersupply system.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 103

104 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Chapter eight: Cost of living at DavenportIntroductionDavenport settlement offers a unique opportunity to examine the cost of living for an Aboriginalsettlement within a larger rural township. Two factors are significant here: firstly, somesupermarket chains in Australia maintain the same price structure across the state, bringing foodcosts into line with city prices; and secondly, ABS research indicates that Aboriginal peopleliving in town-based settlements are poorer than those Aboriginal people living elsewhere in thetown (ABS 2002). Sanders (2004) notes that the incomes of these populations are closer to theincomes of people living in remote settlements than to those of Aboriginal people living elsewherein the town. This is certainly the case for Davenport residents in Port Augusta. Taylor and Bell(2003) note that the populations of such settlements vary, with the 15–25 year old cohort of malesspending a lot of time moving between the settlement and the town.Construction of a hypothetical familyThe generation of a reliable hypothetical family for Davenport requires access to data onpopulation, income, employment, family and household size. The data sources used in this studyare the 2001 Australian Census published by the ABS, data from the National Aboriginal HealthStrategy R3 Project Impact Assessment 2005 and data gathered during this study as part of thewater audit and focus group discussions. The period of data collection was May 2006 to April2007. The hypothetical family for Davenport is estimated to be two adults and one child under theage of 13. This is an average calculation and does not draw attention to periods of high tenancy thatoccur in some houses and the presence of young adults aged 15–19 in numerous families.Davenport populationIn terms of the ABS Australian Indigenous Geographical Classification, Davenport is one of threeIndigenous Locations (ILOCs) that make up the Indigenous Area (IARE) known as Port Augusta,namely Port Augusta Institution, Davenport and the remainder of Port Augusta. According to the2001 ABS Census, the population of Davenport was 220, with 99% (217) of these identifying asAboriginal people and the remaining 1% (3) being non-Aboriginal. At this time the settlementcomprised slightly more males than females (114 males, 106 females).Table 8.1: Population of DavenportAboriginal Non-Aboriginal TotalMale Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total111 106 217 3 0 3 114 106 220Source: ABS 2002More recent data for Davenport suggest that there has been a decline in the resident population.The 2005 NAHS assessment indicates a population of 154, but details of gender composition arenot provided. Data collected by the Davenport settlement in September 2006 reveal a populationof 176 (174 Aboriginal people, two non-Aboriginal people) with females outnumbering males (107females, 69 males). Our research shows 158 people residing at Davenport in February 2007 (97adults, 42 children under 15 and 19 young adults aged 15–19).A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC105

There are broad differences in population estimates for Aboriginal settlements. For settlementslike Davenport, population estimations are confounded by its close proximity to Port Augusta.Taylor and Bell (2003) have noted that estimating population numbers for these settlements ismore difficult than for remote or urban settlements. They suggest that the composition of thepopulation may be reasonably accurate, but the numbers may be skewed. The reason for this is thata significant diaspora of the Aboriginal populations in settlements like Davenport move betweensettlement and town making estimates of population numbers difficult.Age compositionFigure 8.1 shows the age composition of the Aboriginal population of Davenport. The populationis distributed across all the age groups with the exception of the 55–59 year age group where nofemales are represented. The median age for Aboriginal people in Davenport is 24 years. Thisfigure is significantly lower than the median age for the non-Aboriginal population in the largerPort Augusta council area (38 years).The data recording the age breakdown of the Davenport settlement were not up to date and wereunclear. Ninety-seven adults (aged over 19) reside in Davenport with 42 children under the age of15, and 19 residents aged 15–19. The children are distributed among 15 households ranging fromone in some households, up to eight in one other household. The average is two to three childrenper household with children, or one child per family. However, the distribution of tenancies isuneven.Household sizeThe ABS Census 2001 indicates that the mean household size for the Aboriginal population ofDavenport was 5, which is twice that of non-Aboriginal households in Port Augusta. Although itdoes not provide information about the number of people living in each household, NAHS data2005 (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2005) indicate that Davenport comprises 39 houses, with only 32 ofthese being habitable at that time. This gives a population density measure (PDM) of 4.8 (154/32).It was proposed that seven new houses be built to ease the pressure on existing housing stocks andreduce the PDM to 4 (154/39).Community collected data (Appendix 16) suggests that there are 43 households (of which five arevacant) and an average of 3.5 people per household (2.2 adults, 0.9 under fifteen and 0.4 youngpeople aged 15–19). Tenancy is unequally distributed in some three- and four-bedroom homes.There are a total of 116 bedrooms in Davenport for 158 residents. There is a single occurrence of15 residents in one three-bedroom house, and seven in a two-bedroom house. Those with threebedroom houses have an average tenancy of six to seven residents. This compares with ABS (2002)data which record five people per household in Davenport, and a mean of 3.4 per household in PortAugusta more generally.106 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

65 yrs & over60-64 yrs55-59 yrs50-54 yrs45-49 yrs40-44 yrs35-39 yrs30-34 yrs25-29 yrs20-24 yrs15-19 yrs10-14 yrs5-9 yrs0-4 yrsFemalesMales0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Figure 8.1: Age composition of the Aboriginal population of DavenportSource: ABS 2002Calculation of the income of a hypothetical familyEmployment opportunities at DavenportThe 2001 Census data on employment shown in Table 8.2 indicates that 119 Aboriginal peoplewere aged 15 years and over at that time. Out of this potential workforce, 6.7% (8) were employedin CDEP, another 6.7% (8) were employed in other areas and 2.5% (3) were unemployed. Theremaining 84% (100) of Davenport’s working age population fell into the ABS category ‘not in thelabour force’. The 2005 NAHS data for Davenport adds to this picture, reporting that nine people are participantsin the Bungala regional CDEP. Participants are involved in land management projects, undertakinglandscaping, oval maintenance and assisting the Essential Services Officer and office workers.The data collected by a community member in February 2007 shown in Table 8.3 indicates howthe employment situation in Davenport has changed. At that time the settlement comprised 116people aged 15 and over, 97 being adults and a further 19 being young people aged 15–19 years.However, the data suggests that only one person in the 15–19 year age bracket was part of thelabour force. Most people in paid employment were employed by CDEP (24) and 13 others wereemployed in other areas. Forty-seven Davenport residents received unemployment benefits and 14were recipients of a disability support pension. The population of Davenport was therefore largelyunemployed or in CDEP employment. ABS definition of not in the labour force: those in the population who do not satisfy either employment or unemployment criteria. It includes persons who do not wantto work for a variety of reasons such as homemakers, retirees and those who are unable to work due to disability. In addition, it includes people in hospital, prison or otherinstitutions (ABS 2001, p. 232).A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 107

Table 8.2: ABS (2002) employment data for Davenport (15 years and over)Aboriginal Non- Aboriginal TotalEmployment Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female TotalEmployed CDEP 5 3 8 0 0 0 5 3 8Employed other 3 5 8 3 0 3 6 5 11Unemployed 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 3Total labour force 11 8 19 3 0 3 14 8 22Not in labour force 46 54 100 3 0 3 49 54 103Unemployment rate % 27.3 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 13.6Source: ABS 2002Table 8.3: Employment data for Davenport (15 years and over), data collected in February 2007EmploymentTotalEmployed CDEP 24Employed other 13Unemployed 47Total labour force 84Not in the labour force: recipients of disability support pension 14Source: Community generated dataIncome at DavenportRelying on ABS Census data and supported by our own research, key sources of income inDavenport include wages for labour in CDEP or in mainstream forms of work, along withCentrelink benefit payments. Table 8.4 provides a comparison of the median weekly income atthe level of the individual and family for Davenport and the other Indigenous Locations withinthe same Indigenous Area. Based on the ABS 2001 Census, the data shown relate specifically togross income derived from sources such as wages, salary, pensions, unemployment benefits, familyallowances, student allowances and maintenance.The individual income of a Davenport resident is significantly lower than that of a Port Augustaresident (ranging from $80–119 for a Davenport resident to $200–$299 for an Aboriginal PortAugusta resident and $300–399 for a non-Aboriginal Port Augusta resident). Families are similarlydisadvantaged in terms of income. Davenport families receive around $300–399 per week whileAboriginal families receive up to $599 in Port Augusta. In Davenport, the rent paid by Aboriginalpeople falls at the lower end of the scale ($1–49), reflecting the lower incomes of residents of thesettlement.Table 8.4: Median weekly income for Indigenous Locations in the Port Augusta Indigenous areaAboriginalLocationMedian weeklyindividual income $Median weeklyfamily income $Median weekly rent $Aboriginal Non-Aboriginal Aboriginal Non-Aboriginal Aboriginal Non-AboriginalDavenport 80–119 120–159 300–399 n.a. 1–49 n.a.Port AugustaInstitutionPort Augusta:remainderSource: ABS 2002n.a. 500–599 n.a. 300–399 n.a. 500 & over200–299 300–399 500–599 700–799 50-99 50–99108 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

The hypothetical family incomeGiven the population, household size, age range of the children, and the employment characteristicsof the labour force at Davenport, the composition of the hypothetical family is two adults, bothderiving income from Newstart Allowance, and one child aged under 13. The total income thisfamily earns each week is $640.12. Table 8.5 provides detail of this income.Table 8.5: Income of the hypothetical family at Davenport (two adults and one child aged under 13 years)Newstart Allowance $189.90 x 2 $379.80Family tax benefit part A 1 child aged under 13 years $70.42Family tax benefit part B $26.60Total weekly income $476.82Establishing the cost of living at DavenportTravel, utility and rental costsMembers of the Davenport community pay for their electricity and water through the Davenportsettlement Municipal Services Office. Housing and accommodation rental is also paid monthlythrough the Municipal Services Office. Accommodation is built in a public housing format.Residents pay a weekly amount of $75 ($60 for flats) for housing and contribute to a general waterfund for the settlement of $15 per week (Table 8.6). AGL records electricity use at the resident’smeter quarterly, and while it is difficult to suggest an average, quarterly costs are between $400–$500. On an occasion when an electricity bill is, for some reason, inordinate (a bill of $1,500 dueto excessive air-conditioner use has been seen), the MSO has stepped in to pay for the family. Bothmobile and land-line telephones are in use in Davenport. It is common for the land-line telephonesto have bars on them (either STD or both STD and local) due to previous problems in accruinglarge bills (up to $500/quarter) and having difficulties in paying them. Mobile phones tend to berun through pre-paid accounts at around $50 month.Davenport residents shop at the Port Augusta shopping precincts. The shopping services are aboutfive kilometres from the Davenport settlement, and people generally find their way there throughthe use of their personal vehicles. Most residents have vehicles, which are either owned or beingpaid off. Fuel costs differ across families but seem to range from $30 as a basic cost, to $100 in thehigher range.Population movement is significant in Davenport; therefore, many houses have variable levels ofresidency. As a guide, the settlement experiences about a 20% fluctuation through the week, andabout a 40% fluctuation seasonally; for example, in summer the population can increase by 50%.This has a significant effect on utility use and other associated household costs.Houses are equipped with air-conditioners and residents are responsible for furnishing their houses.This includes furniture, kitchen and laundry appliances and general household items like crockery,cutlery, and bedding. In December 2006 amendments to the Municipal Services Act (MSA) required the Davenport settlement (and numerous other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islandersettlements across the country) to hand over assets and close their Municipal Services Office. Further comment on this matter follows in Chapter ten. It is important to note that a number of residents mentioned that their meters did not seem to be read by officers of the electricity corporation, which suggests theirreadings may be estimated from previous bills. However, the charges are eventually adjusted. In 2006 a transit accommodation service was developed in Davenport for the significant number of Aboriginal people moving through Port Augusta for various reasons.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 109

Schooling costsFamilies on low incomes are eligible for a School Card which for primary school children amountsto a payment of $175 per year per child and for high school students $225. For Davenport residentsschool fees are cancelled out by the equivalent School Card payment.Table 8.6: Selected travel and utility costs for the hypothetical family at DavenportItem Cost per week $ Annual cost $Fuel costs for cars 30.00 1,560.00Tyres and repairs 20.00 1,040.00Car registration 11.23 583.96Car repayments 41.38 2,151.76Electricity 40.00 2,080.00Phone (most have STD bar) 20.00 1,040.00Rent 75.00 3,900.00Water 15.00 780.00Total 252.61 13,135.72Medical and associated health costsWeekly and yearly medical costs are given in Table 8.7. The hypothetical family is eligible fora Health Care Card. Pika Wiya Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service provides freepharmaceuticals at the community health clinic for those on a Health Care Card and for pensioners.Health Care Card holders are also eligible for free emergency ambulance travel and some transportconcessions. Aboriginal people at Davenport on wages can also use the Pika Wiya Health Servicebut pay the regular price for pharmaceuticals. As noted elsewhere in this report, dental care isavailable at Pika Wiya, but the waiting time is significant.Creation of a family menu and the costing of items at a local storeCompiling a store boxGenerating a stores box involved three processes:(1) Compiling a weekly family menu for the hypothetical family (Appendix 17). This was done bythree women at Davenport during the November 2006 visit to the settlement.(2) Pricing the items in a Woolworths store at Port Augusta.The weekly menu that was used to create the consumable food list was based on reports from twofamilies at Davenport. Unlike the Tregenza and Tregenza (1998) study, no attempt was made todetermine the nutritional value of the diet. Access to fresh fruit, vegetables and a wide range ofnutritional foods was generally good. The amount of food in the shopping list is guided by thequantities used in the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating (AGHE) for each food group (Smith etal. 1998) and modified according to what people in the settlements said they ate.Table 8.7: Weekly and annual medical and associated costs for the hypothetical family at DavenportItem Cost per week $ Annual cost $PBS prescriptions up to threshold for one family Nil NilGlasses: one pair per adult every four years 2.50 130.00Total 2.50 130.00110 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Survey of the cost of food from the weekly menuA survey of supermarket items from the shopping list was conducted in November 2006 at aWoolworths store in Port Augusta. Woolworths has a policy of charging a standard price for mostfood items across the state, so no comparison with Adelaide was done. Items were divided intogroups that were bought weekly, fortnightly or monthly. The total cost of these items has beendivided by two for fortnightly, or four for monthly items and added to the weekly cost of shoppingto gain an average weekly cost. Food costs were estimated to be approximately $137.47 per week,and an additional $15 per week was added for school lunches and snacks, bringing the total weeklyexpenditure on food to $152.47 (Table 8.8).Table 8.8: Estimated weekly and annual costs for food, health consumables and health hardwareItem Cost per week $ Annual cost $Food (weekly shop and school lunches) 152.47 7,928.44Health consumables 62.19 3,233.88Clothing 15.00 780.00Health hardware 11.83 615.16Total 241.49 12,557.48Note: At Davenport, in November 2006Health hardware costsClothes were mainly bought in Port Augusta, although people did make trips to Adelaide during theyear and clothes were sometimes bought during these trips. Clothes purchased were often secondhand. Clothing expenses were estimated at $15 per week ($60 per month; Table 8.8).Health hardware consists of less common expenditure such as brooms, mops, buckets, cookingutensils, blankets and other bedding and white goods such as kettles, toasters, refrigerators andwashing machines. These are often purchased at Port Augusta. Families are responsible for thepurchase of their own white goods.An estimation of the weekly expenditure of the hypothetical familyTable 8.9 provides a list of average weekly and annual expenses for the hypothetical family atDavenport in 2006. The hypothetical family income at Davenport is estimated to be $476.82 perweek ($24,794.64 per year) with $496.60 per week and $25,823.20 annually needed for basicessential items. This indicates that there is a shortfall of $19.78 in the family’s income to coverbasic costs. It is important to note that these calculations do not include travel to funerals, holidays,Christmas and birthday gifts, family celebrations such as weddings or family related emergencies.Nor does this calculation allow for occasional treats or the adequate intake of fruit and vegetables,particularly important for a population with higher than average incidence of diabetes. Othercosts not included in the budget are purchase of Austar satellite pay television, sporting activities,including travel to sporting fixtures, cigarettes or alcohol, household furnishings, or personal caresuch as hairdressing.Table 8.9: Average weekly and annual expenses for the hypothetical family at Davenport, in 2006Item Cost per week $ Annual cost $Travel, utility and rental costs 252.61 13,135.72Medical costs 2.50 130.00Food, health consumables, health hardware and clothing 241.49 12,557.48Total 496.60 25,823.20A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 111

Limitations of the study findings and the impact of user payswater services on the wellbeing of Davenport residentsThis analysis uses a hypothetical family at Davenport of two adults and one child, with both adultsunemployed. While this may be an under-estimation of the income for some families, it is anover-estimation for those families at Davenport whose income is limited to either a disability oraged pension and who have responsibility for more than one child. Our visits indicate that someaged pensioners are in this situation, where children are moving between households and regularlyrequire their grandparents to feed them. The analysis has also confined income estimations to thefamily unit, rather than to households. While households may generate more than the $476.82per week, as noted in previous chapters, our research indicates that it is erroneous to assume thathousehold costs are shared equally in Aboriginal settlements. The Commonwealth recognisedthis when Centrelink payments were altered so that fortnightly allowances were paid to both theman and the woman in the family unit. An additional factor in Davenport is the gross variationsin household size within the settlement and across the year. The gross average is 4.2 residents perhousehold, with 97 adults and 61 children/teenagers. There are ten households with more thanfour or more adults, six of these households without children. These variations make determininga hypothetical family problematic. If the number of households with children is averaged then atypical family is close to two adults and three children which is the measure used by the communityin other instances to describe themselves. However, if the median is used the hypothetical familyis closer to two adults and one child. These differences in perception caused some discussionin the final focus group and resulted in the numbers being re-checked by the community and anexplanation of the methodology provided for the apparent discrepancy.The data illustrate that the entire household income for the hypothetical family is spent on foodand transport and other essential household health hardware and consumables. The methodologicaldifficulty outlined in chapter three may be one explanation for expenditure being greater thanincome. We noted in Chapter three that the women who compiled the weekly menu may not berepresentative of the hypothetical family. Families on incomes close to the hypothetical family mayeat less food with less variety, particularly around more expensive items such as quality cuts ofmeat. One possibility is that vocal members may well be those who are on higher incomes. Anotheris that people go without. While we did find evidence in other settlements of people going withoutfood and sending children to school without breakfast or money for lunches, our engagement atDavenport did not allow this level of information to emerge.Amendments to the Municipal Services ActDuring the course of this research the federal government amended funding arrangementsfor municipal services to those Aboriginal settlements close to large rural towns, effectivelyconstituting them as suburbs. In the case of Davenport, the proposal is for it to become theresponsibility of Port Augusta Council, rather than an Aboriginal settlement. Similar developmentsare occurring in the Northern Territory, in Alice Springs with the Tangentyere town camps, inKatherine, Darwin and in other South Australian Aboriginal settlements. The impact of thispolicy will be far reaching in terms of utility supplies and water conservation as well as land andhome ownership. For example, water is currently measured in terms of the whole settlement (atthe Davenport inlet by SA Water). The bill is administered to the Davenport Municipal ServicesOfficer (MSO). Without an MSO, individual water meters will need to be read and individual billsdelivered. Mail is also managed through the MSO, so mail delivery (i.e. delivery of individual112 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

ills) will also be affected. The concept of a whole of community approach to water sustainabilitywill no longer hold, or be possible, given the lack of community-based resources. In the pastDavenport community has pushed for individual billing, but this was always in the context of themcontrolling their own internal affairs and remaining a designated Aboriginal settlement. While thesenew developments may lead to individual household billing, the capacity of the community leadersto assist poorer families will be diminished by the loss of funding for community staff.ConclusionIt is useful to consider the unique characteristics of Davenport. Davenport was originally the homeof the Nukunu people who were the original occupants of the Port Augusta region. In 1993, in astudy done by Moisseeff et al. (1999, p. 34), residents were asked to identify their birthplace. Onehundred and thirteen different towns or regions throughout Australia and 11 main language groupswere identified. The main language groups were Pitjantjatjara (24%), followed by Adnyamathanha(13%), Antakarinja (11%), Arabana (11%), Arrernte (9%), and Dieri (7%). This variety of culturalbackgrounds has proved to be one of the difficulties for community leaders trying to forge a strongunified approach to issues. Unlike the other three settlements in this study, Davenport is not asettlement based on a small number of extended families but on a group of people from varyingcultures and languages living together. However, attendance at the final focus group indicates ahigh level of community engagement in its affairs. At the final focus group session where the reportwas signed off, twenty adults attended, some of whom were in CDEP employment. Davenportcommunity arranges all its formal meetings on a Thursday so that as many community members aspossible can attend.As a final comment, Davenport stands out among the four settlements in this study for its highrate of unemployment. While it could be argued that Davenport residents have more opportunityto access mainstream employment than residents of the other three settlements, the reality appearsto be otherwise. The negative impact of long-term unemployment on the family and householdresource base is well known (Carson and Martin 2001). Anecdotal comments from Davenportresidents engaged in collecting data for this research project indicate that a significant level ofgambling occurs in the community. It is taken up by poorer members as a last ditch attempt tosupplement their income. The difficulties for single men living alone were also noted. The findingsfrom Scotdesco confirm that difficulties are experienced by young men or women when theylive alone. Given this, the impact of future price hikes linked to the NWI on Davenport residentsshould be carefully monitored. There may be opportunity for some families to install a range ofwater saving household technologies, but any improvements at a settlement level would need to befunded by government or private agencies.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 113

114 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Chapter nine: Water use at DavenportIntroductionThe research objective to reduce water use through identifying sustainable water savingtechnologies, and to promote Aboriginal wellbeing through reducing ‘utility stress’ is mostpertinent to Davenport. Davenport has had a subsidy (which they received from the formerDepartment for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) progressively scaled down over a periodof three years. Davenport is now in the middle of the complex process of being ‘mainstreamed’as a suburb of Port Augusta. ‘Complexities’ relating to this ‘mainstreaming’ process, as voicedby the Port Augusta City Council (Stephens 2007), include uncertainty about the level and cost ofservices required in Davenport, Council rates to be chargd on the internal properties, the status ofinfrastructure, accessibility to the property and the expertise and resources required for this processto succeed.Water supplyDavenport, as with Port Augusta, receives Murray River water via the Morgan–Whyalla pipeline.The quality of the water in Davenport is similar to other South Australian country areas on thesystem. The State of the Environment Report for South Australia (Government of South Australia2003) presents the five-year average concentrations and the compliance of a number of waterquality parameters recorded in customers taps in the Eyre Peninsula region from 1997/98 to2001/02. Microbiological content, nitrate, copper, iron, fluoride and manganese concentrationsshowed good compliance with Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG), but TotalDissolved Solids (TDS) exceeded the recommended concentrations 88% of the time, with thefive-year average TDS at 982 mg/L. Under the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, and basedon taste, the TDS of drinking water ‘should not exceed 500 mg/L’ (NHMRC 2004). Accordingto the ADWG the palatability of Davenport’s water is close to being classified as ‘unacceptable’– water with a TDS between 800 and 1,000 mg/L is classified as ‘poor’, and above 1,000 mg/LTDS as ‘unacceptable’. TDS values range between 45 and 750 mg/L in major Australian reticulatedsupplies (NHMRC 2004).SA Water supplies water to a single meter at the boundary of Davenport settlement from where thewater is reticulated throughout the settlement. The community is responsible for all internal waterinfrastructure and billing arrangements. As Davenport is classified as a single Aboriginal LandsTrust (ALT) property, legally SA Water does not have the jurisdiction to read individual householdmeters. Davenport’s status as a single ALT property is part of the reason for some of the concernsraised by the Port Augusta Council outlined previously. Those concerns are an example of thecomplexity of the issues that will arise as a result of Davenport’s potential change in status. As arecipient of SA Water under the statewide pricing policy (see Box 9.1), Davenport Council receivesone bill which is ‘sent direct to the Corporation Secretary’, as outlined in Box 9.1.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC115

Residential water rating systemThere is a statewide price for water. This means that whether you live in Ceduna or Campbelltown,Goolwa or Glenelg, everyone pays the same price per kilolitre for water regardless of the cost of gettingthat water to your home. This system is considered the fairest way to spread the cost of providing andmaintaining basic water facilities across the community. Water pricing for residential customers is brokendown into:••An annual charge for supplying the serviceA stepped pricing system for water use – the more you use, the higher your billResidential properties include houses, maisonettes, home units, flats and strata/community title residencesand vacant residential land.The residential water charges set by Government for 2006/2007 are:•••A quarterly access charge of $37.0047 cents per kilolitre (kL) for the first 125 kL used in the year$1.09 per kL for residential consumption above 125 kL over the yearThese rates are payable on any land that can be connected to an available water main, whether or not theproperty is connected to the water supply system.Strata and community title propertiesIf your home is part of a strata or community title corporation and the water supply is provided throughone meter, there are three available options for water use billing.Your strata or community title Corporation Secretary can apply to SA Water, for one of the followingbilling options to be implemented:•••An even split between all the units included on each individual owners’ accountsAn uneven split (agreed by the owners) included on individual owners’ accountsAn account sent direct to the Corporation Secretary*Box 9.1: An excerpt from the SA Water website outlining their water pricing and billing systemSource: SA Water 2007* Note: This applies to Davenport.Water useWater readings were taken at each building in Davenport every Monday and Friday over a six-weekwinter period from 19 June to 28 July 2006; once in September; and every Monday and Friday overa four-week summer period from 27 November to 15 December 2006. As shown in Figure 9.1 ,household water use is variable.There are 43 occupied houses in Davenport, each with an individual water meter. In addition WamiKata (aged care facility) currently houses 24 people, but has a capacity for 28, and the visitorscampsite – Lake View – can accommodate 60 people. The data collection revealed that there areproblems with a number of the meters that renders them unreadable: some of the meters operate inthe reverse (i.e. the meters count down – see Figure 9.1); some meters on houses where evaporative Households have been allocated coded numbers to enable the researchers to scrutinise data, while providing anonymity to the household residents.116 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

coolers were seen to be operating showed no water use, indicating that they are not connected tothe water system; there was excessive wetness inside some meter boxes which may indicate a leak;and two meters could not be read as condensation obscured the figures.20018016027 Nov 06 - 1 Dec 06 2 Dec 06 - 4 Dec 065 Dec 06 - 8 Dec 06 9 Dec 06 - 11 Dec 0612 Dec 06 - 15 Dec 06Water Consumption (kL)140120100806040200126232728456729303132338349351011121314253615161718193720W2124383940La414243444546474849-20Building CodeFigure 9.1: Cumulative water consumption (kL) monitored each Monday and Friday between 27 November and 15 December 2006Note: Wami Kata (W) aged care facility houses 24 people. Lake View visitors camp (La) houses a variable population of up to 60. The negative valuesindicate houses with a faulty meter connection. Some of the occupied houses show zero water use indicating that the meter is not connected to thewater system. Water use at house 24 exceeds the scale of the graph.The data are therefore limited, but indicate that the infrastructure would need considerable attentionbefore an external agency could read the meters and provide individual households with water bills(notwithstanding the legislative restrictions discussed earlier).Dichotomous water useDavenport displays dichotomous water use patterns; that is, there are a number of houses thatconsistently use very low quantities of water (100 L/p/d or less) and a few that have high waterconsumption (above 400 L/p/d). Of the 20 houses for which there are consistent valid data, Table9.1 shows that between eight and fifteen houses are water efficient. Large subterranean leakswithin a household property boundary, excessive water use, or carelessness (leaving taps runningduring absences) in just a few households can account for a sizeable proportion of a settlement’swater expenditure. For example, of the 26 houses for which there are reliable data during thesummer monitoring period, one house accounts for 46% of the total water use of the 26 houses.As shown in Table 9.2, the single high-user household uses over double the water of multi-personaccommodation such as Wami Kata aged care facility which houses 24 people, and around triplethat of Lake View (which can accommodate up to 60 people). The average water use at Wami Kataover the 17-day summer period was 448 L/p/d; with weekday water use ranging from 389 to 604L/p/d and weekend use between 209 and 286 L/p/d.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 117

Table 9.1 Average daily per capita seasonal and long term (179 days) water use‘Winter’ use19 June to 28 July(38 days)Average daily per capita water use (L)‘Summer’ use27 November to 15December (18 days)Long term average19 June to 15 December(179 days)Range of water use 56 to 796 53 to 490 73 to 695Average in 20 houses 253 235 238Number of houses using below 100 L/p/d 8 2 6Number of houses using above 400 L/p/d 4 3 3Number of houses showing ‘average’ water efficiency 8 use around 253 L/p/d 15 use around 227 L/p/d 9 use around 192 L/p/dSeasonal water useWater use data are available from the SA Water invoices that the community receives on aquarterly basis. Applying the data across the population of Davenport (158) to yield a daily percapita water use is problematic in that it does not consider the variable and sometimes sizeablevisitor population (based at Lake View); it apportions water used in community buildings,the office block, Pika Wiya, work sheds and the sports complex across the population; and itapportions any subterranean leaks across the population. Based on the data, the daily per capitawater use over a 92-day period from July to September 2006 was 992 L/p/d, while use betweenOctober to December 2006 was 1,106 L/p/d. Given the constraints of the data there are limitationsto interpretation; however, they provide an indication of seasonal water use. For the communityas a whole more water was used in summer (1,106 L/p/d) than in winter (992 L/p/d). Analysis ofhousehold meter readings showed that 12 of the 43 households used more water in winter than insummer (Table 9.2), although this may have been influenced by changes in population in thosehouses. Unlike in Nepabunna, there are no marked trends in water use related to the presence ofevaporative coolers. In Davenport, some houses with reverse cycle air conditioning used morewater than neighbouring houses with evaporative coolers.The impact of leaksGiven that some houses used less water in the latter part of the monitoring period it was thoughtthat growing awareness of the drought might account for the improved water use efficiency. Asa result, the topic was raised with the community. However, discussions revealed that betweenthe winter and summer monitoring period a number of sizeable leaks had been repaired whichwould account for the lower water use in the latter monitoring period. This reiterates the need for adetailed audit of the Davenport infrastructure, the ongoing need for an on-site MSO, and highlightsthe potential for unnecessary water costs to be incurred by the community.118 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Table 9.2: Average daily household water use in DavenportHouse codeAverage household water use (L/d)19 June to 28 July 27 November to 15 Dec. 19 June to 15 December1 791 1,065 7522 121 97 1003 901 1,411 1,1214 1,232 1,242 6365 2,749 1,520 2,3246 4,778 1,892 1,3637 645 2,945 1,3928 624 425 5849 474 1,132 61810 855 1,283 97811 - 1,160 71912 309 733 25513 2,642 1,282 3,42914 2,743 2,450 3,32015 1,449 659 2,08516 390 768 58417 - 1,273 54318 2,519 1,123 1,47719 1,803 1,415 20720 602 200 31721 619 611 75022 269 133 20323 764 1,463 76124 - 24,300 -25 824 1,125 -Note: In winter (38 days), summer (18 days), and over a 179-day periodResults of the contingent valuation studyAs with Nepabunna, a contingent valuation study was conducted in Davenport with a small numberof predominantly male, adult residents of the settlement. Participants were asked to comment onthe amount of money they might be willing to contribute in hypothetical scenarios:(1) the installation of water-efficient household fittings (Box 9.2)(2) the creation of cost-sharing obligations on the community through a successful application for aCommonwealth Community Water Grant.Participants were also asked to comment on:(3) receiving a comparative household water use statement (similar to those discussed in Chapterfive)(4) whether a free basic water allowance should exist, and if so, the amount such an allowanceshould be.Participants were given fact sheets on each topic to inform and generate discussion, and they werethen given time to ask questions and consider the options before responding.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 119

Water-efficient fittings cost a total of $150. If these were installed in your home and all the plumbingservices costs were covered (by an external agency) would you be willing to pay: the $150 equipment costs (given that you will recover this money on water savings from lower waterbills each year). a once-off contribution of $30 per household towards the $150 equipment and plumbing expenses, butan external organisation must cover the other part ($120). [This is what the Queensland Government isoffering residents in SE Queensland]. some financial contribution, but less than $30, perhaps $………..in total some financial contribution, more than $30, perhaps $………in total nothing towards the costs, because……………………………………………….. I don’t want these water saving fittings in my house, because ……………………Box 9.2: An excerpt from one of the contingent valuation questionnaires answered by the focus group membersGiven the small number of respondents, the results are not statistically valid, but they provide anindication of the feelings of a sector of the population. In the hypothetical scenario outlining theinstallation of water-efficient household fittings (Box 9.2), all the respondents stated that theywould be willing to contribute $30 towards the installation of the fittings in their homes because‘we’re going to save in the amount of water used’.In a second hypothetical scenario, respondents were asked what they would request and whetherthey would contribute towards a Community Water Grant – again, the respondents were unanimousin their willingness to contribute a nominal sum, and in their desire to have rainwater tanksplumbed into the laundry and toilet system. In addition, there was a strong desire to have accessto recycled water or a borehole to irrigate the oval and community areas, but it was thought thecost would exceed a Community Water Grant allowance (of up to $50,000). Larger-scale projectsrequiring greater expenditure fall under the Water Smart Australia funding scheme. Some of thenewer houses in Davenport have solar hot water systems and some respondents in older housesexpressed an interest in having solar hot water systems installed.All the respondents expressed an interest in receiving a comparative water statement (showingcomparative water use in Davenport and Port Augusta, as outlined in Chapter five – see Figure5.8), adding that such a statement would help reduce wastage.Not all respondents answered the questionnaire on a free basic water allowance, but those who didrespond felt that a free water allowance of 100 L/p/d should be available to low income households.For the hypothetical family (3 people) a free basic allowance of 100 L/p/d would equate to asubsidy worth $119.36 each year (300 L/family/d x 365 days x $1.09/kL = $119.36/year), withonly water use above this sum being charged. In South Africa, in 2001, the government issued apolicy to ensure that every household receives a free basic water allowance of 6 kL/month (or 200L/household/day; Water Research Commission 2005). In Davenport if each house was grantedthis amount it would equate to a $79.57 reduction in the annual water bill. In Christchurch, NewZealand, property owners are charged water rates according to the capital value of their property.Christchurch City Council does not charge domestic users for water but monitors and informshouseholds with excessive use.120 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Suitable water saving strategies and technologiesBased on the results of the contingent valuation study and related focus group discussion, a numberof water saving technologies appropriate and acceptable to Davenport residents are discussedbelow. In addition to those mentioned above, the role of water auditing is outlined.Domestic rainwater collectionLong-term climate data (over 102.5 years) shows that Port Augusta has an average annual rainfallof 242.8 mm (Bureau of Meteorology 2007). To determine the amount of rainwater that could beharvested, Davenport data was applied to the equation (Chapter three) as follows: in November2002 a survey of the building layout and infrastructure of Davenport settlement was conductedfor the Department of Aboriginal Housing (T Forgan 2006, pers. comm. ). A computer-generatedcalculation of the solid roof area (i.e. excluding pergolas) of all residential, non-residentialbuildings, and sheds in Davenport yields a total roof area of 11,023 m 2 , that is, the roof area fromwhich rainfall could be collected. For a rainfall of 242.8 mm, a loss of 24 mm each year (B in theequation) amounts to around 10% of the annual rainfall. The maximum volume of runoff that canbe generated from the roof area in Davenport is 2,047,595 L each year. This volume of rainwaterwould fill over 108 large rainwater storage tanks each with a capacity of 18,925 L (i.e. similar tothose in Yarilena shown in Figure 7.2).Figure 9.2: Rainwater for potable use in one of two housesat Davenport where trials are being conductedDespite the capacity for domestic rainwatercollection there are relatively few rainwater tanksin Davenport. The reason for this is partly becauserainwater is only considered as a potable resource,and following the installation of evaporativecoolers on the roofs of houses in the mid-1990s,there was the perception that water flowing fromevaporative coolers onto the roof would renderrainwater unfit for human consumption (Willis etal. 2004). There are around 27 buildings or shedswith rainwater tanks. A few are not connected toa roof (and therefore receive no input), are of asmall capacity (1,000 L), or are partly rusted. Aminority are useable (i.e. of an appropriate capacityand connected to a roof). In total, the estimatedrainwater collection is less than 10% of what couldbe collected. Rather than viewing rainwater solelyas a potable resource, in Davenport there is scopefor the community to consider rainwater as a nonpotableresource; that is, each house should befitted with two 18,925 L rainwater tanks plumbedinto the laundry and toilet, with the associatedprotective non-return valves installed. Rainwatercould also be used in gardens and for car washing.There are two houses where rainwater for potable use is under trial. The tanks have a smallcapacity (as shown in Figure 9.2) but are fitted with protective first flush and filtering devices tominimise health risks. Licensed Surveyor, Sinclair Knight MerzA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 121

Recycled waterAs in 2002 (Willis et al. 2004), the community expressed a strong desire to use recycled water.The successful use of recycled water for beautifying parts of the Port Augusta town environment(Figure 9.3), is a constant reminder of the potential for Davenport.Figure 9.3a: Recycled wastewater, treated to Class B irrigation water, is used in the greening of the Port Augusta ForeshoreRedevelopment zoneFigure 9.3b: In contrast, Davenport settlement is in need of greening122 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

The community expressed an interest in the Water Smart Australia scheme to fund an extensionof the recycled water pipeline to Davenport. The settlement is located on a direct route less than 4kilometres (Figure 9.4) from the eastern Port Augusta Foreshore Redevelopment zone. Thereforethe cost of extending the recycled water pipeline to Davenport should not be prohibitive.Figure 9.4: The proximity of Davenport settlement to the eastern Port Augusta Foreshore Redevelopment zone – a distance of lessthan 4 kilometres along a direct routeSource: Google EarthSA Water, which operates two wastewater treatment plants in Port Augusta, supplies wastewater toPort Augusta City Council at no cost. The Port Augusta City Council has developed a wastewatertreatment facility that when fully operational will produce 150 ML of water treated to Class Beach year (ABC News 2005b). The project, which cost $900,000, was funded by the Port AugustaCity Council (two-thirds of the cost) and the state government (a third of the cost). The stategovernment funding was through the River Murray Environmental Flow Fund on the basis that thecouncil needed to irrigate parks and sporting facilities without extending their reliance on MurrayRiver supplies. The system currently irrigates some park lands, council gardens, some council andEducation Department ovals, and the Foreshore Redevelopment (Shine 2005). The treatment plantsoperated by SA Water are Port Augusta West, with a capacity of 1.26 ML/day, that services thewestern part of the town (west of the Spencer Gulf), from which 90% of the treated wastewateris reused (in 2004/2005); and Port Augusta East with double the capacity at 2.66 ML/day, whichA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 123

services a population of 5,000, but from which there is no wastewater reuse (SA Water 2006c).With reference to the volume of wastewater produced, there is potential for more of the water to berecycled. Treating wastewater for reuse is an expensive process; the greater the level of treatment,the broader the range of uses permitted under Department for Human Services guidelines.Depending on the level of treatment, wastewater is classified into different classes. To be classifiedas ‘Class B’ water (Port Augusta) the wastewater undergoes full secondary treatment followedby disinfection; the suspended solid content should not exceed 30 mg/L. Use of Class B wateris restricted to secondary direct contact recreation, ponds where there is public access, and dustsuppression and irrigation provided there is restricted public access during spraying (EnvironmentProtection Agency 1999). It is this latter restriction that potentially limits the use of recycled waterin Davenport; a subterranean irrigation system would be necessary.Besides the irrigation value of using recycling water, there is the added environmental benefitthat less wastewater is discharged into the Upper Spencer Gulf – a marine environment withlimited assimilative capacity for wastewater due to its hydrography. Port Augusta prison also usesrecycled water. In 2001, an onsite wastewater treatment plant was built at the prison to irrigatean onsite woodlot for timber and a few hundred thousand native seedlings for distribution to thestate’s national parks. The treatment plant was financed through a joint venture between GreeningAustralia and National Parks and Wildlife Service (South Australian Department for CorrectionalServices 2001).Water auditOne of the main areas for reducing water costs to the community is by using water more efficientlyon a domestic scale. It is therefore recommended that household water audits be conductedthroughout Davenport. To this end, two members of the Community Council attended a two-daytraining course on ‘Water auditing on remote communities’ run by the Centre for SustainableArid Towns (CSAT), in Alice Springs in February 2007. CSAT has conducted water audits in theAboriginal settlements of Gunbalanya, Santa Teresa and Canteen Creek in the Northern Territory.The course outlined how water use can be monitored, covering topics such as the patterns of wateruse in settlements, houses and gardens; the role of hardware such as taps and hot water systems; therole of maintenance and education; monitoring strategies and equipment; how to read water meters;how to install and download data from data loggers; and calculations and data analysis.It is estimated that by taking proactive steps on the results of a water audit, ‘typical’ householdscan save almost half of their annual water use (WaterCare undated). Conducting water audits canbe very simple, yet effective. The SA Water self-audit rates water use in the garden and outdoors,the bathroom, toilet, laundry, kitchen, taps and leaks, and the water source; and provides a watersmart summary and tips for water savings (Table 9.3).124 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Table 9.3: Excerpts from a simple ‘Home Water Self-Audit’BathroomYour water use is closest to…How do you use water? High water use Moderate water use Water efficient Water smart actionsWhat is your showerflow rate?What are yourshowering and bathingpatterns?Toilet15 litres perminute or moreFrequent long (>8mins) showersBetween 9 and 15litres per minute(score 2)Medium lengthshowers andoccasional baths (1)9 litres per minute orless (score 4)Short showers (

ConclusionDavenport has scope to reduce their water bills by up to 50% through a few simple strategies.Firstly, with two members of the community recently trained in water auditing, it is recommendedthat a water audit be conducted on all buildings within Davenport and any areas needing attentionfrom a plumber identified, opportunities to install water efficient fittings itemised, and theresidents’ awareness raised in the process. The subsequent savings on the settlement water billcould be used to offset the cost of the fittings. Secondly, it is estimated that less than 10% ofthe rainfall that could be collected is harvested from settlement roofs – there is scope for thehousing authorities to maximise this potential water source or for funding to be requested througha Community Water Grant. A third, more complex strategy, is develop a proposal to extend therecycled water pipeline from the Port Augusta Foreshore to Davenport. The community is eager touse recycled water – it is therefore recommended that this be further investigated, and if necessaryfunded through a Water Smart Australia scheme.Water use savings could be made as a result of responses to a water audit, and greater use ofrainwater in the laundry (as opposed to mains water). Together with a free basic water allowance(of 100 L/p/d or $100/household/annum), such changes could provide the incentive for householdsto live within a water allowance and therefore not incur any additional water use costs. Given theimpending introduction of individual household billing for water, and the levels of poverty in thecommunity (Chapter eight), the above-mentioned technologies and responses are likely to achievedesirable outcomes for the community (in cost savings) and for the state (in helping to meet theNWI objective of more efficient water use).126 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Chapter ten: Conclusion and recommendationsIntroductionThis project engaged communities in discussions about strategies to reduce their individualhousehold and overall settlement water costs. In taking this approach it was recognised that watercosts could be reduced in three ways: through technological and infrastructure improvements;through improved water use efficiency; and through economic/financial incentives. In summary theproject sought to:• provide an economic appraisal of water costs to households through cost of living analyses• explore ways that water costs to households could be reduced through water conservationpractices or water-efficient technologies (while simultaneously promoting the sustainabilityof water resources)• use a hypothetical (contingent valuation) exercise to engage Nepabunna and Davenportcommunities in discussions about their willingness to pay for the implementation of watersavingor sustainable water technologies.Comparisons between the four settlementsThe differences in recommendations related to the implications of the introduction of user pays forwater services are, in the first instance, a reflection of the impact of the cost of living in each of thefour settlements. They are also a reflection of the historical background, type of water supply andcurrent federal and state policy for Aboriginal settlements. When we began this study in 2005 onlyone settlement, Nepabunna, did not formally or informally pay for its water or water infrastructure,and the community regard their water as sub-optimal. Davenport, on the outskirts of Port Augustahas paid for its water use for close to seven years and the quality of their water is satisfactory.Both these settlements’ water infrastructure are funded through the Commonwealth-State BilateralAgreement on Essential Services with the contract for settlement-based infrastructure outsourced toSA Water since 2003. The involvement of SA Water at Nepabunna is only as part of a contractualobligation with the state government and is not part of mainstream water service provision.Yarilena and Scotdesco are not covered by the Bilateral Agreement and were originally fundedthrough ATSIC. Scotdesco now comes under the portfolio of the Commonwealth Department forFamilies, Community Services, and Indigenous Affairs (FACSIA), who are also increasingly usingSA Water to advise it on suitable water solutions for Aboriginal settlements. Both Yarilena andScotdesco were originally homelands composed of one or two large extended families. Likewise,Nepabunna residents share family ties, which makes internal decision making easier than in moredisparate settlements. This is not the case for Davenport, which is composed of three distinctgroups with ties to the Arrente, Pitjantjatjara and other Aboriginal groups.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC127

Objective 1: to conduct an economic appraisal of the watercosts to householdsThe first objective was to conduct an economic appraisal of the water costs to householdsthrough a cost of living analysis (a summary of the findings is given in Table 10.1). The cost ofliving analysis also examined the capacity of each community to pay for water, or pay for futureimprovements in the efficiency of their water supply.Table 10.1: The water costs borne by households or the settlement (as a whole), responsibilities for water services and maintenance,and proportion of income spent on waterHousehold watercosts (per week)Settlement watercosts (per week)Water serviceproviderNepabunna Yarilena Scotdesco Davenport0 $5 $5 for 1st tenant + $10 foreach additional person0 ~$500 includes: SA Water supply,Water West membership; andexcludes: sewage levy, internalinfrastructure maintenanceSA Water undercontract to AARDCost of water It costs AARD $4.31per kL (excludingmaintenance)SA Water to the settlementboundaryThe standard SA Water rates of$0.47 for 1st 125 kL, then $1.09/kL, plus community access charge$3.00/week$461 for RO membranesonly, excludes other ROmaintenance and pumpingcostsInternal responsibilityIt costs ~$25.00 per kL; thisis not charged, but is basedon operating, maintenance,pumping costs$15-SA Water (to the gate)under contract to AARDThe standard SA Waterrates of $0.47 for first 125kL, then $1.09/kL plusaccess charge $3.00/weekInternalinfrastructuremaintenanceIncome of an averagefamily (per week)Expenditure on water(% of income)Percent of incomespent on basic food,health, and utilityliving expenses onlyPeriodic plumbingmaintenance paid byAHA fundsWater West membership is $15/week (while on SA Water)Paid out of Yarilena Trust fundsA builder in the community doesmuch of the maintenance workAn MSO does basic servicesContractors are used forspecialised RO maintenance$552.82 $609.75 $507.22 family 10% to households,SA Water costs arecovered by AARD0.8% to households, excess costsare covered by the Yarilena Trustfunds$764.73 family 2$254.91 family 33.0%3.3%86% 85% 93%2.0% respectively82%130% respectivelyAn MSO is a local contactPlumbers as needed$476.823.1%104%As noted in Chapter two, there are considerable methodological difficulties using the cost of livinganalysis with Aboriginal settlements. For example, gaining access to reliable data is problematic,and issues of remoteness and misunderstandings across language and cultural divides mean thatpopulation and related data on household and family composition, size, employment and incomeare at best an estimation. However, the estimation of living costs for the hypothetical families inthe four settlements are consistent with the findings of the ABS Household Expenditure Survey for2003–2004 (2005).Table 10.1 shows that in the four settlements, expenditure on water ranges from 0.8 to 3.3% of theirweekly household income. By comparison, the state average for non-Aboriginal South Australianhouseholds is 1.2% (Pearce et al. 2006). These figures are similar to those given by Stephenson(1999) for developed countries (around 1–2% of income). In contrast, there is a greater range inexpenditure among poorer communities; for example, Komives and Prokopy (2000) found that128 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

the average household expenditure on water ranged from

YarilenaWhile residents at Yarilena enjoy a higher income than those at Nepabunna it is still low. Thehypothetical family for Yarilena was composed of two adults and two children, with both adultsin receipt of CDEP income. This provided a weekly income of $609.75 (which is 3% below thepoverty line), and the cost of essential food, health consumables and hardware was $597.34,or 97% of income. The expenditure on food at Yarilena is more than at Nepabunna, but this isunderstandable given the different diet of Nepabunna residents, and the easy access Yarilenaresidents have to Ceduna. Residents at Yarilena already pay for all utility costs: electricity,telephone and water. While the proportion of the average income spent on water is low (0.8% ofincome; see Table 10.1), the costs borne by the community as a result of leaking pipes has putconsiderable strain on community finances. If the expense of the water associated with the leakinginfrastructure were borne by individual households, each family (hypothetical) would need to pay$35.08 per week (or 5.8% of income) rather than $5 (0.8% of income) to cover the costs.ScotdescoThe income for hypothetical families in Scotdesco ranges from $254.91 for a single person to$764.73 for a family comprising three adults. In all cases the household income is marginal, yetresidents pay for all utility costs. The proportion of income spent on water alone ranges from 2to 3.3% of income. The estimations of income are exaggerated given that the only available workis CDEP, which is highly seasonal, and national research indicates that a significant number ofrural-based CDEP participants do not earn an income for the full twelve months of the year (Hunter2002b). Similar to Yarilena, Scotdesco has severe infrastructure issues with their water supply,and recent research by SA Water estimates that the current cost of water is $25 per kL (SA Water2006b). A move to full cost recovery is not viable for any population where water costs are sohigh, let alone Scotdesco, where incomes are dependent on seasonal work and CDEP. Scotdescoresidents will continue to require government support for major capital works into the future. Theideal solution would be to provide low maintenance, low cost infrastructure such as rainwaterharvesting, and for the community to continue to put aside money for repairs and maintenance ofthe lower cost alternatives.DavenportThe hypothetical family at Davenport was identified as two adults, both unemployed, and one childunder 13. The cost of living was calculated to be $496.60, or 104.1% of the total weekly income of$476.82. This is 16.8% below the poverty index (of $557.13). Householders pay $15 per week fortheir water, which equates to around 3.2% of their weekly income.Objective 2: to identify ways in which water costs to householdscould be reducedThe NWI requires new services or the refurbishment of existing infrastructure to beenvironmentally and economically sustainable. The second aspect of this research was thereforeto explore ways in which household water costs could be reduced through water conservationpractices with concomitant improvements to the sustainability of the supply. The key findings ofthe study are summarised in Tables 10.2 and 10.3.130 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Table 10.2: Water supply, use (excluding rainwater) and water saving technologies appropriate to the four settlementsCurrent watersupplyNepabunna Yarilena Scotdesco DavenportGroundwater (non-potable)Central rainwater collection frombasketball stadium (potable)Reticulated SA WatersupplyRainwater collection at eachhouse provides >21% ofwater useGroundwaterdesalination (potable)Collection of rain fromroofsReticulated SA Watersupply from Murray River(potable)Minimal rainwatercollectionWater use 435 L/p/d 208 L/p/d 141 L/p/d 73 to 695 L/p/dExcess water users1. Evaporative coolers can use>960 L/d and account for mostwater use in summer2. One or two households haveexcessive water use1. One or two householdshave higher than averagewater use, but showedimproved efficiency later inthe monitoring periodInsufficient data1. Faulty meters andleaking infrastructureaccount for a portion ofunnecessary water use2. A number of householdshave excessive water useAppropriatetechnologies andstrategies aimed atreducing relianceon current waterresources andreducing excesswater use1. Passive cooling features inhousing would reduce reliance onevaporative cooling2. Provide residents with a monthlycomparative water use statement.Charge for excessive water useonly, following an advisory period3. Install dual flush toilets,waterless urinals and aerators in allcommunity buildings4. Increase rainwater collection inthe community centre and plumb itinto the toilet system5. Install a 2nd large roof-basedrainwater collection system tosupplement and lower the salinityof groundwater supplies1. A third 18,925 Lrainwater tank should beinstalled at each house.While it will only savearound 5% of householdwater costs annually, it isa long-term sustainablesaving2. Reinstate the irrigationsystem from the onsiteSTED ponds, which havefallen into disrepair1. Install additionalrainwater tanks at eachhouse2. Install a largescale ground-basedRWH system, withUV treatment prior toreticulation3. Install compostingtoilets in the communitycentre as an initial trial1. The community shouldrecognise rainwater as anon-potable resource andinstall more tanks at eachhousehold with plumbinginto the toilet and laundry2. Conduct a householdwater audit of internalfittings, their status and thepotential for replacementwith water efficient fittings3. Extend the treatedeffluent pipeline from thePort Augusta Foreshore toDavenport for subterraneanirrigation of the oval and to‘green’ the environmentTable 10.3: Other ways of reducing household water costs in the four settlements and potential funding agencies for water savingtechnologiesOther means ofreducing householdcosts (with nowater resourcesavings)Otherrecommendationsto externalagenciesHow thetechnologies mightbe fundedNepabunna Yarilena Scotdesco Davenport1. Maintain subsidies for water2. Install solar hot water systems toreduce electricity costs1. Meter the potable supply as itforms an integral component of theavailable water resources2. Conduct test pumping in the twobores to determine the sustainablepumping ratesCommonwealth Community WaterGrant; Water Smart Scheme; AARDA move from SA Wateronto the Ceduna-Koonibbapipeline will addressthe costs associatedwith leaking internalinfrastructure which hasaccounted for between40–60% of the water bill.However, the unit cost ofwater will be marginallymore and a CSO subsidywill not be availableInstall solar hot watersystems to reduceelectricity costs- Community membersshould evaluate otherground-based RWHsystems in the region sothey can make informeddecisions regardingRWHApply for NHT funds to re-fitthe greywater irrigationschemeFACSIA Grant;Community Water Grant1. Maintain subsidies forwater by providing allresidents with a free basicwater allowance (100 L/p/d) with charges for excesswater use only2. Install solar hot watersystems to reduceelectricity costs1. Maintain the presenceof an MSO within thesettlement2. Contract SA Water toevaluate the status of allmeters and settlementwater reticulation system(to the boundary of eachhousehold)AARD; Community WaterGrant; Water SmartSchemeA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 131

Objective 3: to engage communities in discussions about theirwillingness to pay for the implementation of water saving orsustainable water technologiesThe third objective was aimed at engaging Nepabunna (Table 10.4) and Davenport (Table 10.5)communities in discussions about the levels of water service delivery that they might be willing tocontribute towards. In each hypothetical scenario presented, participants had an opportunity to statethat they did not want such technologies and to give reasons if they wished.The findings at Nepabunna suggest that it is not that the community is unwilling to pay, but ratherit is a matter of their ability to pay for water. This response is a shift in attitude from that voicedsome years ago (Pearce et al. 2005) which asserted the principle of not having to pay for what wasregarded as a cultural right. Although those feelings still exist, there is now more concern over theaffordability of essential services, including water. The participants questioned whether householdswith high water use had the means to pay for excess water use, although they had previously stated:‘If you gotta pay for water it means we’re not going to waste it, isn’t it?’ As noted in Chapter five,one of the reasons people ‘just walk away’ from town living and move to a remote independentsettlement such as Nepabunna is the burden of mounting debts associated with rent and utilitycosts.Table 10.4: Results of the discussion on the Nepabunna community’s willingness to contribute towards a range of hypothetical, (butrealistic) water saving and resource extending technologies (contingent valuation study)Hypothetical scenarioIn (1) and (2) capital expenditure would be borne by an external agency, with thecommunity asked to contribute $5/fortnight to ongoing maintenance costs of the system.1. Supplement the current non-potable supply with groundwater from an additional newbore, perhaps on a shared basis with Iga Warta. This would entail investigative drillingand test pumping and significant installation and pipeline costs.2. Install a large roof-based rainwater harvesting system similar to the basketballstadium collection system but over a new dome that could be designed for BBQs andother social events.3. Install $150 worth of water-efficient fittings (dual flush toilets, AAA showerheads,aerators) within each household. The bulk of the expense would be covered by anexternal agency with each household asked to contribute a one-off payment of $20, $10,less than $10 or nothing towards the fittings.4. Provide each household with a comparative water use statement to help promotewater use efficiency (not a financial request).Willingness to contributeto the schemeConcern around the affordability of this option due to theirlow income.The community felt this was a move ‘backwards’.5. A free basic water allowance with charging only for excess water use. Yes, but it would be difficult to implement. High waterusers could feel ‘victimised’ and it could lead toantagonistic relationships. It would require means testingthe household.YesResidents at Davenport were very responsive to the range of options put to them during thecontingent valuation exercise. This may well be because they already pay for water and electricity.Community members also responded positively to the proposal that they contribute to theinstallation of a range of water-efficient fittings such as dual flush toilets and AAA shower heads.Similarly, they were prepared to make a contribution by way of funds or labour to enhance their bidfor a Community Water Grant. This willingness to contribute should be judged in the light of theoutcome of the cost of living analysis. As already noted this study found the hypothetical family atDavenport to be the poorest of the four settlements with their income 16.8% below the poverty line.The Davenport figures were based on the fact that a higher percentage of Davenport residents areunemployed than at Nepabunna, Yarilena or Scotdesco, despite their proximity to Port Augusta andpossible employment opportunities beyond CDEP. In the four years we have conducted research at132 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Davenport community members have expressed a strong desire to access either recycled water or aborehole to irrigate the oval and community areas, although community members are mindful of thecosts. What must also be recognised is that opinions at Davenport are contingent on the outcome ofcurrent discussions that deal with amendments to the Municipal Services Act (outlined in later partsof this chapter).Table 10.5: Results of the discussion about Davenport community’s willingness to contribute towards a range of hypothetical (butrealistic) water saving and resource extending technologies (contingent valuation study)Hypothetical scenarioWillingness to contributeto the scheme1. Install $150 worth of water-efficient fittings (dual flush toilets, AAA showerheads, aerators) withineach household. With each household asked to contribute a once-off payment of $150, $30, less than$30 or nothing towards the fittings.2. Community Water Grants require some form of financial contribution, in-kind support through labour,and promotional activities from the successful recipient.3. Provide each household with a comparative water use statement to help promote water use efficiency. Yes4. A free basic water allowance, with charging for excess water use only. YesCompounding issues for the four settlements$30 per householdThe situation for Aboriginal communities meeting the high cost of services is often more complexthan that for other citizens. This is partly a result of where Aboriginal people reside, but also of thehistory surrounding the development of settlements. Any move to user pays or full cost recoveryfor domestic water supplies needs to consider the following factors: the need for adequate provisionof subsidies for utilities to Aboriginal householders; realistic employment prospects for Aboriginalpeople in remote and rural areas; and the implications of the federal government’s policy ofmainstreaming for those settlements on the fringes of large rural towns such as Davenport.Lack of access to subsidies for water servicesSubsidies or concessions that aim to spread the costs of essential services more equitably acrossthe community are of two kinds. The first form of subsidy is the CSO. Under these provisionshouseholders in rural and remote areas are charged a rate similar to costs in urban areas as a matterof equity. Accessing the CSO is not automatic, nor is it transparent. The second kind of subsidy is arange of concessions and allowances offered by utility providers and government welfare agencies.In South Australia, the state government Department of Children, Youth and Family Services,administers a range of concessions to low income families to meet the costs of water and sewerage.Eligible recipients must own and occupy their residences, non-home owners are not eligible(Government of South Australia 2007).SA Water provides rebates for pensioners in cases where they have a Pensioner Concession Careor a state concession card, or are a TPI pensioner, war widow or have received confirmationof concession card entitlements. However, recipients of Department of Children, Youth andFamily Services subsidies must be an owner or part-owner of their property, reside there and beresponsible for paying rates and land taxes. In 2006 the concession allowed for up to $95 a year forwater rates and use, and $95 per year for sewerage rates (SA Water 2006d). Likewise, Centrelinkprovides a utilities allowance to aged and veteran pensioners in receipt of income support. The ratein 2006 was $105.20 for singles and $52.60 each for eligible couples (Centrelink 2006).Aboriginal people living in discrete settlements are not the owners of the houses in which they live,and therefore are not eligible for the concessions outlined above. While there are moves to allowAboriginal people residing in a discrete settlement to purchase their homes, there are a numberYesA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 133

of hurdles not yet resolved. For example, the most recent attempts in the Northern Territory toallow residents of the town camps in Alice Springs to buy their own homes has been stalled by therequirement that the people hand over lease-hold of their land to the Northern Territory Government.On the other hand, Aboriginal people living in Housing Trust homes in rural towns or in urban areasare not required to pay electricity, water or council rates, as these are the responsibility of the Trust.This is often also the case for those renting from the private sector. In the case of the settlementsexamined in this report, the landowner is the Aboriginal Lands Trust (ALT). Presumably, if theutility costs were paid by the ALT, they would wish to charge property rentals that would cover thecosts of the utility services. Increases in rent would cancel out any gains.Aboriginal property renters (non-home owners) are eligible for the programs offered by SA Water,AGL and other utility providers for customers having difficulty meeting monthly, quarterly orhalf-yearly accounts. These providers make provision for customers to make weekly or monthlypayments or to pay large accounts in manageable amounts. Customers have to notify the providerof the difficulties they are experiencing and arrange for a change of payment option. While this isan option for Aboriginal settlements, as Willis et al. (2004) note, Aboriginal householders in ruraland remote regions report difficulties in communicating with utility providers unless they havelocal office staff who can handle this service.The issue of access to utility subsidies needs to be resolved for Aboriginal people living onsettlements where they are not the landowner or landlord.Current arrangements in place in remote Aboriginal settlements for thecollection of money to cover water costsResearch by Willis et al. (2004) indicates that a number of remote Aboriginal settlements arealready paying for the water services that are delivered to each household, but the communityreceives one account for the cost of the water delivered to the gate. This arrangement requires theCommunity Council to put into place some arrangement for collecting sufficient funds to meetthese repayments. Various approaches are in place. In some settlements the council collects a flatrate each week, in others the meters are read and householders are billed accordingly.The question of whether the Community Council should be responsible for collecting charges isvexed. As Willis et al. (2004) note, the collection of rent and other utility costs is stressful in somesituations. Community Councils do not have the powers vested in local government or the weightof the law behind them. Further, they live close to households experiencing difficulty meetingweekly rental payments and this complicates decision making.In those settlements such as Davenport where the federal government has ruled that they willmove to mainstream services, several issues still need to be resolved. All houses will need tohave working water meters attached, but more importantly, the issue of SA Water access to eachhousehold meter remains problematic. Until this issue is resolved legally, it is not possible to moveto individual user billing at Davenport or any other Aboriginal settlement. Legal issues governingaccess to Aboriginal Land by utility providers must be resolved before the federal governmentwithdraws funding for municipal services.Opportunities for mainstream employment beyond CDEPThis analysis has used a range of hypothetical households from Nepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdescoand Davenport. The weekly incomes were sourced from CDEP figures, or in the case of Davenport,from unemployment figures. It could be argued that the financial situation for community members134 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

should improve over time with a shift to mainstream and full-time employment; however, theresearch team believes this is highly unlikely. Recent research by Hunter (2002a) suggests thatwhile the CDEP has been successful in providing employment for Aboriginal people, there are anumber of features of the program that mean that it is not likely to act as a bridge to mainstream orfull-time employment. There has been a shift in labour market characteristics across the rural sectorwith a decrease in unskilled and semi-skilled jobs, particularly for males in the 15–24 year bracketand a tendency for Aboriginal youth to see CDEP as an alternative to staying on at school. Whilethere has been an increase in the number of Aboriginal adolescents staying on to complete highschool, CDEP has acted as an alternative. The high number of males in the age bracket 15– 24 atScotdesco on CDEP suggests that this has been a trend in this settlement.A third important point raised by Hunter (2002a) is that much CDEP work is seasonal. In thisreport, incomes have been based on CDEP payments across a twelve-month period. It is possiblethat a number of community members would be seasonal workers, bringing annual incomes downbelow the estimates we provide. Indeed, Hunter (2002a) notes that the average CDEP worker isemployed for approximately ten months out of twelve in any year and the population fluctuations atScotdesco, Nepabunna and Davenport support this.Conversely, it is also possible that community members might supplement their CDEP incomeswith full-time employment or additional part-time work in mainstream jobs. While this may be thecase for some members, it is highly unlikely in the case of Scotdesco and Nepabunna given thedistance from the nearest large town and the loss of unskilled and semi-skilled jobs in rural andremote regions (Hunter 2002a). While jobs are available in Leigh Creek, the company, FlindersPower (formally NRG), has a tendency to employ people from outside the region. In further work,Hunter notes that Aboriginal people are less likely than non-Aboriginal people to migrate insearch of work (Hunter 2002b). Information obtained as part of this research suggests that travel isrestricted to those towns and settlements where people have relatives. There is some expectationat both federal and state levels that unemployed people will travel to find work, or as in the caseof mining, commute on a rotational basis between their home and work-site. While we foundsome evidence of this at Nepabunna and Scotdesco, it is not a widely held practice, and it raisesquestions about the consequences of causing significant shifts in social structures. A situationwhere the majority of working adult males were away working on mining sites would hollowout these small settlements and create further instability within families. Consequently, Hunter’s(2002a) assessment that CDEP accounts for 50% of Aboriginal employment in rural and remoteregions is likely to continue to be accurate. Residents at Nepabunna, Scotdesco and Yarilena arelikely to be dependent on CDEP for some time to come; accordingly, incomes will continue tobe from approximately 3% above to 17% below the poverty line. The reality is that CDEP is nota stepping stone to mainstream employment but a substitute for people who would normally findthemselves outside the mainstream labour market (Hunter 2002b). The analysis of Nepabunna andScotdesco also needs to take account of their lack of access to the services and infrastructure thatpeople in urban areas and large rural towns enjoy. These include access to public transport, leisurevenues and a range of shops.A final comment on income relates to the capacity of these four settlements to generate additionalincome through the customary economy or through capital ventures such as tourism, fishing,agriculture or mining. We note in Chapter four that there is little opportunity for Nepabunna toexplore alternative income generating schemes. The tourist market is already taken by Iga Warta,and Nepabunna’s own explorations into bush foods are hampered by the lack of water. For thisA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 135

venture to provide serious returns, a large-scale water harvesting system would need to be putin place. Both Yarilena and Scotdesco settlements do engage in small-scale commercial andagricultural enterprises and this money is used to maintain community services, including waterinfrastructure. As noted in the chapter on Yarilena, some of the profits from their fishing ventureshave been spent on repairing leaks in the water pipes, and similarly at Scotdesco settlement, fundsare being spent on repairs to the RO system.Despite these trends, other research into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander poverty (Hunter andGray 1999) indicate that there been an overall decline in the relative deprivation of Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander Australians since 1986. This is attributed to the individualisation of welfarepayments; that is, welfare payments are now paid to both the man and the women in a family unit.This shift in the organisation of welfare payments has had a significant impact on women betweenthe ages of 25–34, promoting equity within the home. The negative side of this policy change isthat there has been a slight rise in poverty rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and othermales. It should also be noted that this policy change has not resulted in an overall increase inincome to Aboriginal groups, just a redistribution of welfare payments.Amendments to the Municipal Services Act and its effect on settlements thatare not individually billed for waterDuring the course of this research the federal government amended funding arrangements formunicipal services to Aboriginal settlements. About 30 settlements are facing significant financialcutbacks and a shift in to mainstream services. Mainstreaming in this sense means that the specificneeds of Aboriginal settlements will come under the jurisdiction of local councils. This includesgarbage collection, keeping the neighbourhood tidy, and animal control and raises the question ofhow water, electricity, rental and health services will be managed. Davenport settlement will beaffected by this new legislation.In our work in Davenport we saw that the change to funding arrangements had clearly had asignificant effect on the community. These changes pose particular difficulties in relation to watersupply and use. The move to user pays through the National Water Initiative has similar effects.User pays conceives all parties (owner, provider, purchaser) as equal contractual agents. It isclear that Aboriginal settlements cannot be considered in this way, as supported by studies of thedisadvantage of remote Aboriginal Australians.136 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Recommendations arising from the studyRecommendations for Nepabunna• It is recommended that passive temperature control features be installed in existing housesand any new housing stock.• Groundwater extraction rates should be investigated to ascertain the life of the bores.• It is also recommended that DWLBC monitor the rate of potable water use as it is anintegral component of the settlement’s water supply.• To prevent further utility stress, it is recommended that maximum subsidies for waterservices remain at Nepabunna. There should not be a move towards user pays for waterservices.• Water provision to many remote Aboriginal settlements is not up to the water utilitystandards of metropolitan Adelaide (although in many cases it is of a better standard thanoutback towns). A review of the standards for water provision to remote settlements isneeded.• The community favours the expansion of rainwater harvesting systems because: it is asustainable resource; it is a low maintenance technology; the storage, disinfection plant andreticulation system already exists; it can be used to lower the salinity of the non-potablesupply and, if roof-based, supplement the potable supply. The possibility of expanding therainwater harvesting system should be investigated.• The community favours the installation of a new bore but understands the expense may beprohibitive. The cost of installing a new bore should be investigated.• It is recommended that dual flush toilet fittings, and aerators on taps in the office block andwork compound buildings be installed.• While the community would be prepared to receive a water statement of use, the mechanicsof collecting the data on water use could lead to tensions. It is not recommended that awater statement be issued.Recommendations for Yarilena• Additional rainwater tanks should be installed at each household to supplement their currentrainwater supply and thereby reduce the cost of mains water to the community.• The Aboriginal Health Council in Ceduna needs to be restocked with sampling equipmentto enable them to resume periodic testing for bacterial contamination in rainwater tanks.Recommendations for Scotdesco• It is recommended that passive temperature control features be installed in existing housingand any new housing stock.• The community would consider expansion of rainwater harvesting systems because: it isa sustainable resource; the costs of maintaining the desalination plant are unsustainable; itis a low maintenance technology; the storage and reticulation system already exists. It isrecommended that the community visit existing ground-based rainwater harvesting systemsto enable them to make informed decisions, as they currently feel that this technology ‘isbeing imposed on them’.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 137

Recommendations for Davenport• It is recommended that passive temperature control features be installed in existing housesand any new housing stock.• A water audit should be conducted in all settlement homes and buildings to identify wheremaintenance of water infrastructure is required and what the potential is for water efficientdevices to be installed.• Dual flush toilet fittings and aerators on taps should be fitted in the office block and workcompound buildings.• It is recommended that SA Water conduct an audit of all the water meters and subterraneanwater distribution infrastructure to determine the extent of water loss through leakinginfrastructure, and to repair these where necessary.• Legal issues governing access to Aboriginal Land by utility providers must be resolvedbefore the federal government withdraws funding for the MSO.Closing statementOne of the aims of the South Australian Strategic Plan (SASP) is ‘Aboriginal wellbeing’ whichis in keeping with COAGs ‘Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage’ policy. Under the SASP,a reporting framework exists to enable government ‘to assess the impact of policy and serviceinterventions on the lives of Aboriginal South Australians’ (Department of Premier and Cabinet2005). This study provides an assessment of the potential impact of increasing water costs inNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport settlements. This study also provides a response tothe recommendation that Aboriginal people be canvassed for their views on the issues arising fromthe NWI. The NWI requires Aboriginal engagement in their processes to properly address theseissues.The NWI legislation requires signatory states (South Australia) to provide water services thatare economically viable and sustainable. The water resource options available to a number ofAboriginal settlements are not economically viable, and in parts there remain questions aroundthe sustainability of supplies. The NWI is clear that in some instances the CSO will remain,provided there is transparency in its application. In the 2005 assessment of progress towards theNWI objectives, it is said that ‘as long as the government [of South Australia] has a policy ofstatewide water pricing, there will be the need for a statewide CSO’ (National Water Commission2006, p.6.28). For many rural and remote towns and settlements in South Australia it is thereforevital that the CSO remain as part of South Australia’s equity, social justice and regional policy.Furthermore, the NWI makes allowance for areas where services are uneconomical but need tobe maintained to meet social and public health obligations. Given the levels of poverty in thesettlements detailed in this study, additional subsidies will need to remain in place to ensure‘Aboriginal wellbeing’; the onus will be on policy makers and advisors to government to ensurethis occurs. The responsibility for viability is not only up to advisors, government, serviceproviders or policy makers, but is also a responsibility to be shared by the community throughefficient water use. This study has shown that water use in all four settlements is mostly modest,with further water savings hindered by inappropriate housing design, or inappropriate watertechnology.138 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

ReferencesABC News 2005a, Water authority considered Ceduna desalination plant, Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1383663.htm (Accessed 30 November 2006).ABC News 2005b, Water re-use scheme to boost Murray flows, Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/australia/sa/port/200510/s1490134.htm (Accessed 25 October 2006).ABC South Australia 2006, States shouldn’t rely on rain for water supply: Turnbull, Monday 13 November2006, Available at: www.rage.net.au/news/items/200611/ 1787372.htm?sa (Accessed 30 November2006).Altman JC 2000, The economic status of Indigenous Australians, CAEPR Discussion Paper 193, Centre forAboriginal Economic Policy Research, ANU, Canberra.Altman JC 2004, ‘Indigenous interests in water property rights’, Dialogue, vol. 23(3), pp. 29–34.Altman JC, McDonnell S and Ward S 2002 Indigenous Australians and competition and consumer issues:a review of the literature and an annotated bibliography, Working paper 12, Centre for AboriginalEconomic Policy Research, ANU, Canberra.Altman JC and Cochrane M 2003, Indigenous interests in water: A comment on the ‘Water Property Rights’report to COAG from the Water CEOs Group Discussion Paper, Centre for Aboriginal EconomicPolicy Research, Australian National University: Canberra, Available at: www.anu.edu.au/caepr/topical.php (Accessed 30 April 2007).Anderson H and Cummings D 1999, Measuring the salinity of water, Landcare notes, State of Victoria,Department of Sustainability and Environment, LC0064 November 1999.Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2002, 2001 Census of Population and Housing, Australian Bureau ofStatistics, Available at: www.abs.gov.au/ausstats (Accessed 9 October 2006).Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2005, Household Expenditure Survey 2003-04: Summary of results,Catalogue 6530.0, Available at: www.abs.gov.au (Accessed 9 October 2006).Australian Government 2004, Guidance on use of rainwater tanks, Australian Government Department ofHealth and Aging, Canberra.Australian Greenhouse Office 2001, Analysis of potential for minimum energy performance standards forevaporative air conditioners, National Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Program Reportprepared by Mark Ellis and Associates for the Australian Greenhouse Office, Available at: www.energyrating.gov.au/ library/pubs/ tech-evapac2001.pdf (Accessed 12 October 2006).Bailie RS, Carson B and McDonald E 2004, ‘Water supply and sanitation in remote indigenous communities:priorities for health development’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, vol. 28(5),pp. 409–414.Bateman, IJ and Turner RK 1993, ‘Valuation of the environment, methods and techniques: The contingentvaluation method’, in Sustainable Environmental Economics and Management, Principles andPractice, ed. RK Turner, Bellhaven Press, London and New York.Bureau of Meteorology 2005, Leigh Creek, SA – Daily weather observations, Available at: www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW0503.shtml (Accessed 12 October 2006).Bureau of Meteorology 2006a, Leigh Creek, SA – Daily weather observations, Available at: www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW0503.shtml (Accessed 12 October 2006).Bureau of Meteorology 2006b, Average sunshine hours, Available at: www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/cgi_bin_scripts/sunshine-hrs.cgi (Accessed 18 November 2006).Bureau of Meteorology 2006c, Average temperature in Ceduna, Available at: www.bom.gov.au/climate/(Accessed 18 November 2006).Bureau of Meteorology 2007, Port Augusta, SA–Daily weather observations, Available at: www.bom.gov.au/climate/ (Accessed 16 February 2007).A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC139

Carson RT, Flores NE and Mitchell RC 1999, ‘The theory and measurement of passive use value’, in Valuingenvironmental preferences: Theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the USA EC,and developing countries, eds. JI Bateman and KG Willis, Oxford University Press, New York, pp.97–130.Carson E and Martin S 2001, Social disadvantage in South Australia, SACOSS, Adelaide.Centre for Sustainable Arid Towns 2004, Sustainable housing in Central Australia: A guide to efficient useof energy and water, Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Northern TerritoryGovernment, Alice Springs.Centrelink 2007, What are low income health care card holders entitled to? Available atwww.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/ea3b9a1335df87bcca2569890008040e/81b94c4ebb7e10e3ca2571a0000ad6a8!OpenDocument#what (Accessed 1 May 2007).Clarke R, Gerges N, Osei-Bonsu K and Dodds S 2000, An investigation of the potential for rainwaterharvesting at Nepabunna, North Flinders Ranges, South Australia, Report Book 2000/00010,Department of Primary Industries and Resources, South Australia.Clarke D 2005, Eyre Peninsula water supply: a suggested cure, a practicable water supply for EyrePeninsula, Available at http://au.geocities.com/daveclarkecb/ EyrePenWater.html (Accessed 12December 2006).Commonwealth of Australia 2005a, Great Australian Bight Marine Park (Commonwealth Waters andState Waters)–A description of values and uses, Director of National Parks, Australian GovernmentDepartment of the Environment and Heritage, Available at www.deh.gov.au/coasts/mpa/gab/values/pubs/values.pdf (Accessed 05 December 2006).Commonwealth of Australia 2005b, Your home technical manual, 3 rd edn, Available at www.greenhouse.gov.au /yourhome/technical/ fs22.html (Accessed 29 November 2006).Council of Australian Governments (COAG) 2005, Intergovernmental Agreement on a National WaterInitiative, between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Governments of New South Wales,Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern TerritoryAvailable at: www.coag.gov.au/meetings/250604/index.htm#water_initiative (Accessed 12 October2006).Department for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation (DAARE) 2003, Doing it right policy, DAARE,Adelaide.Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure undated, Water heating, Department for Transport,Energy and Infrastructure, Government of South Australia, Available at: www.sustainable.energy.sa.gov.au/pdfserve/general/pdf/water_heating_jan06.pdf (Accessed 18 November 2006).Department of Premier and Cabinet 2005, South Australia’s Strategic Plan, Available at; www.stateplan.sa.gov.au/ (Accessed October 2005).Department of State Aboriginal Affairs (DOSAA) 2002, 2001/2002 Annual report: Routine borewater supplymaintenance 2001/2002, Specification Nos. 13, 14 and 15, AAM-01, Division of State AboriginalAffairs, Adelaide.Dodds AR and Sampson L 2002, Hydrogeological report on water well monitoring in Aboriginal Lands toMay 2002, Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation, Adelaide.Environment Protection Agency 1999, South Australia reclaimed water guidelines: treated effluent,Department of Human Services, Environment Protection Agency and Public and Environmental HealthService, Adelaide.Environment Protection and Heritage Council 2006, National guidelines for metropolitan customers’water accounts, draft document open for public comment, Available at: www.awa.asn.au/Content/NavigationMenu2/Events/CustomerWaterBillGuidelines/water_account_web.pdf (Accessed 21September 2006).140 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Forward NRM and Arilla-Aboriginal Training and Development 2003, Scoping study on Indigenousinvolvement in natural resource management decision making and the integration of Indigenouscultural heritage considerations into relevant Murray-Darling Basin Commission programmes, reportto the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Murray Darling Basin Commission.Government of South Australia 2003, State of the environment report 2003, Available at: www.environment.sa.gov.au/soe2003/sup_report/human/water.pdf (Accessed April 2007).Government of South Australia 2007, Families SA: connecting individuals, families and communities,Available at www.familiesandcommunities.sa.gov.au/ (Accessed April 2007).Hammer L 2004, ‘Indigenous peoples as a catalyst for applying the human right to water’, InternationalJournal on Minority and Group Rights, vol. 10, pp. 131–161, Koninklijke Brill NV, Netherlands.Hammerton M 1986, Water South Australia: A history of the Engineering and Water Supply Department,Wakefield Press, Adelaide.Hartung H 1999, Attitudes towards rainwater harvesting, Development Technology Unit, Working Paper No.45, Warwick University, Available at: www.eng.warwick.ac.uk/DTU/rwh/eudocs/b1.pdf (Accessed 01September 2004).Hartung H (Ed) 2002, The rainwater harvesting CD, Margraf Publishers, Germany.Henderson RF, Harcourt A and Harper RJA 1970, People in poverty – A Melbourne survey. Cheshire,Melbourne.Henderson RF 1975, Commission of Inquiry into poverty, First Main Report, vol. 1, Australian GovernmentPublishing Service, Canberra.Hoyal S. and de Vries D 2006, ‘Sustainable electricity and water management on remote Indigenouscommunities’, Desert Knowledge Symposium, 1–3 November 2006, Alice Springs.Hunter B and Gray M 1999, Income fluctuations over the lifecycle: a cohort analysis of Indigenous andnon-indigenous Australians, 1989–1996, Working Paper 183, Centre for Aboriginal Economic PolicyResearch, ANU, Canberra.Hunter B 2002a, The rise of the CDEP scheme and changing factors underlying Indigenous employment,Working Paper 13, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, ANU, Canberra.Hunter B 2002b, Institutional factors underpinning Indigenous labour force participation: the role ofthe CDEP scheme and education, Working Paper 14, Centre for Economic Policy Research, ANU,Canberra.Institute for Sustainable Futures 2003, Hardware used at the Cool Living House and reductions in energyand water use, Arid Lands Environment Centre (ALEC), Available at: www.alec.org.au/site/index.cfm?display=2575 (Accessed 30 October 2006).Jackson S 2004, Preliminary report on Aboriginal perspectives on land-use and water management inthe Daly River region, Northern Territory, report to the Northern Land Council and Daly RiverCommunity Reference Group, Northern Territory Department of Infrastructure, Planning andEnvironment, Darwin, Available at: www.ipe.nt.gov.au (Accessed July 2006).Jackson S 2006, Addressing Indigenous cultural requirements in water allocation, Available at: www.rivers.gov.au/research/tropical/index.htm (Accessed November 2006).Kaliba ARM, Norman DW and Chang Y-M 2003, ‘Willingness to pay to improve domestic water supplyin rural areas of Central Tanzania: Implications for policy’, International journal of sustainabledevelopment and world ecology, vol. 10(2), London.Karpiscak MM and Marion MH 1994, Evaporative cooler water use, University of Phoenix, Arizona,Available at: ag.arizona.edu/pubs/consumer/az9145.pdf (Accessed 12 October 2006).Karpiscak MM, Babcock TM, France GW, Zauderer J, Hopf SB and Foster KE 1998, ‘Evaporative coolerwater use in Phoenix’, Journal of the American Water Works Association, vol. 90(4), pp. 121–130.Keneally G 2004, Outback water supplies discussion paper: A report by the Working Group for OutbackWater Supplies, Arid Areas Catchment Water Management Board and SA Water, confidentialdocument.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 141

Komives K and Prokopy LS 2000, ‘Cost recovery in the focus projects: Results, attitudes, lessons andstrategies’, BPD Water and Sanitation Cluster, WaterAid, London.Laing IAF 1981, ‘Rainfall collection in Australia’, in Proceedings of a workshop hosted by the Universityof Arizona, eds. GR Dutt, CF Hutchinson, M Anaya Garduno USA and the Chapingo PostgraduateCollege, Mexico, pp. 61–66.Langton M 2002, Freshwater: Background briefing papers and water rights discussion booklet, LingiariFoundation, Broome, WA, Available at: www.atsic/issues/ Indigenous_Rights/Indigenous_Rights_Waters/docs/layout_papers.pdf (Accessed 12 May 2006).Lawrence J 2002, Electricity: it’s just essential. Low income electricity consumer project report, SA Councilof Social Services and the Office of the Ageing, Adelaide.Leonard D, Zlotkowski K, Harrison M and Bonehill M 1997, Healthy food access basket report, TropicalPublic Health Unit, Cairns.Li X-Y, Xie Z-K and Yan X-K 2004, ‘Runoff characteristics of artificial catchment materials for rainwaterharvesting in the semiarid regions of China’, Agriculture Water Management, vol. 65, pp. 211–224.Lingiari Foundation 2002, Onshore water rights discussion booklet one and offshore water rights discussionbooklet two, Lingiari Foundation, Broome, Western Australia.Lombardi LM 2004, ‘American Indian water rights: some observations and their implications for Australia’,Indigenous Law Bulletin, vol. 29(5).MacFarlane B 2004, ‘The National Water Initiative and acknowledging Indigenous interests in planning’,paper delivered to the National Water Conference, Sydney 29 November 2004.Martin R and Dillon P 2002, Aquifer storage and recovery: Future directions for South Australia, report tothe Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2002/04, Adelaide.Martin D, Morphy F, Sanders W and Taylor J 2004, Making sense of the census; Observations of the 2001enumeration in remote Aboriginal Australia, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research,Research Monograph No 22, Canberra.Meedeniya J, Smith A and Carter P 2000, ‘Food supply in rural South Australia: a survey on food costs,quality and variety’, Eat Well SA, May.Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research 2007, Poverty lines: Australia, Available at:melbourneinstitute.com/ labour/inequality/poverty/default.html (Accessed 1 May 2007).Miller P and Rainow S 1997, ‘Don’t forget the plumber: research in remote Aboriginal communities’,Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, vol. 21(1), pp. 96–97.Moisseeff M, Houseman M, and McKenzie A 1999, An Aboriginal village in South Australia: a snapshotof Davenport, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Report series,Canberra.Morgan L, Venema D and Pelekani C 2003, Water Quality and Quantity Appraisal for Remote AboriginalCommunities for Water Service Improvement, SA Water, Adelaide.Morgan M, Strelein L and Weir J 2004, Indigenous rights to water in the Murray Darling Basin: In supportof the Indigenous final report to the Living Murray Initiative, Research Discussion Paper # 14, NativeTitle Research Unit, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra,Available at: www.aiatsis.gov.au/research_program/publications/discussion_papers.Morphy F 2004, Indigenous household structures and ABS definitions of the family: What happens whensystems collide, and does it matter? Centre for Aboriginal Economic and Policy Research, ANU,Canberra.Morrissey M 2003, ‘Poverty and Indigenous Health’, Health Sociology Review, vol. 2(1), pp. 17–29.Martinson DB and Thomas T 2003, Better, faster, cheaper; research into roofwater harvesting for watersupply in low-income countries, ARCSA, Austin, Texas, Available at: water\rwh-publications\ext pubsby us\arcsa austin 2003\ARCSA (Accessed September 2004).Mou H 1995, ‘Rainwater utilization in north China’, Waterlines, 14(2).142 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Mourits LJM and Kumar PB 1995, ‘Rainwater utilization in rural Fiji’, Waterlines, vol. 14(2).National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) 1991 Recommended dietary intake for use inAustralia, AGPS, Canberra.National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) 2004, Australian drinking water guidelines,NHMRC, Canberra.Northern Territory Power and Water Corporation 2005, How to be water wise in Alice Springs: You’ll savemoney and precious water, Power and Water Corporation, Darwin.National Water Commission 2006, Progress on the National Water Initiative: a report to the Council ofAustralian Governments, Australian Government, National Water Commission, Available at: www.nwc.gov.au/publications/docs/COAG_report_2006.pdf (Accessed 12 September 2006).Nganampa Health Council, NPY Women’s Council, Anangu Pitjantjatjara and all Community Councils onthe APY Lands 2002, Mai Wiru process and policy - Regional stores policy and associated regulationsfor the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Lands, Nganampa Health Council, Alice Springs.Nganampa Health Council, South Australian Health Commission and the Aboriginal Health Organisationof SA, 1987, Uwankara Palyanyku Kanyintjaku report: An environmental and public health reviewwithin the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Lands, UKP Report, Adelaide.Parsons Brinkerhoff 2005, ‘Project impact assessment 2005 – Evaluation of community and project –Nepabunna’, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Adelaide.Pearce M, Willis E, Jenkin T and Wurst S 2005a, ‘The potential for rainwater harvesting to supplementdomestic water supply in an Aboriginal community in semi-arid South Australia’, South AustralianGeographical Journal, vol. 104, pp. 1–10.Pearce-Churchill M, Willis E and Jenkin T 2005b, ‘Barriers to rainwater harvesting in an Aboriginalcommunity in South Australia’, Proceedings of the XII International Rainwater Catchment SystemsConference, 15–18 November, New Dehli, India.Pearce M, Willis E and Jenkin T 2006, ‘Aboriginal people’s attitudes towards paying for water in a waterscarceregion of Australia’, Environment, development and sustainability, vol. 9, pp. 21–32.Perez N 2002, ‘Achieving sustainable livelihoods – a case study of a Mexican rural community’, CommunityDevelopment Journal, vol. 37(2), pp. 178–187.Pholeros P, Rainow S and Torillo P 1993, Housing for health: towards a healthy living environment forAboriginal Australia, Health Habitat, Newport Beach, New South Wales.Power and Water Corporation, How to be water wise in Alice Springs, The Power and Water Corporation,Government Printer of the Northern Territory.Red Book 2006, The Red Book, Available at www.redbookasiapacific.com/au/ (Accessed November 2006).Rees, DG, Nyakaana S and Thomas TH 2000, ‘Very-low-cost roof water harvesting in East Africa’,Development Technology Unit, Warwick University, Working Paper No.55, Available at: www.eng.warwick.ac.uk/dtu/rainwaterharvesting (Accessed August 2004).Richards L, Symon B, Burrow D, Chartier A, Misan G and Wilkinson D 2002, ‘Undergraduate studentexperience in dental service delivery in rural South Australia: an analysis of costs’, Australian DentalJournal, vol. 47(3), pp. 254–258.Richardson L, Hairsine P and Ellis T 2004, Water farms: A review of the physical aspects of water harvestingand runoff enhancement in rural landscapes, CRC Catchment Hydrology, Technical Report 04/6,Melbourne,Ross K 1999, ‘Population issues, Indigenous Australians’, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Occasional Paper1996, catalogue number 4708.0, Canberra.South Australian Arid Lands Natural Resources Management Board (SAAL) 2006, Catchment watermanagement plan: South Australian arid lands region, Arid Areas Catchment Water ManagementBoard, Available at: www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/ nrm/boards/saal/regdocs/#Catchment_Water_Management_Plan_(CWMP) (Accessed 12 October 2006).A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 143

Sanders W 2004, Indigenous people in the Alice Springs Town Camps: the 2001 census data, Centre forAboriginal Economic Policy Research, No. 260, ANU, Canberra.SA Water 2002 Water quality 2001, SA Water annual report 2002, Government of South Australia, Adelaide,SA.SA Water 2004, SA Water annual report 2003, Government of South Australia, Adelaide, SA.SA Water 2006a, ‘Yarilena Community: Proposal to project manage water and wastewater infrastructurerepairs’, correspondence (unpublished) between FACSIA and SA Water.SA Water 2006b, ‘Scotdesco water supply review, report on findings’, report prepared for Department forAboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Adelaide, June 2006. Unpublished report, Adelaide.SA Water 2006c, Country wastewater treatment plants, Available at: www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/Education/OurWastewaterSystems/Country+Wastewater+Treatment+Plants.htm Updated 22 August2006 (Accessed 2 February 2007).SA Water 2006d, CSO subsidies, Available at: www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/ (Accessed 2 February 2007).SA Water 2007, Pricing information, Available at: www.sawater.sa.gov.au/ SAWater/ YourAccount/UnderstandingYourAccount/ Pricing+Information.htm (Accessed 01 February 2007).Sharma, S. 2002, ‘Rainwater harvesting has yet to protect India from drought’, Waterlines, vol. 21(4), pp.22-24.Shine R 2005, ‘Port Augusta City council uses their initiative in the reuse of grey water, Port Augusta sewermining’, Eco-voice editorial, Port Augusta City Council.Smith A, Kellett E and Schmerlaib Y 1998, The Australian guide to healthy eating, Children’s HealthDevelopment Foundation and Deakin University, AGPS, Canberra.Solarhart® 2007, Solarhart systems, product data, Available at: www.solahart.com.au/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=751 (Accessed May 2007).South Australian Council of Social Service (SACOSS) 2002, Where there’s a will…tackling poverty in SouthAustralia, Submission to the Social Development Committee of the South Australian Parliament forthe Poverty Inquiry, 30 September 2002.South Australian Department for Correctional Services 2001, ‘Highlights in corrections’, SA Department forCorrectional Services Newsletter, October 2001.Stephens JG (City Manager), Port Augusta Council seeks support from federal Aboriginal Affairs Minister onDavenport funding cut, media release, Port Augusta City Council 19 January 2007.Stephenson D 1999, ‘Demand management theory’, Water SA, vol. 25(2), pp. 115–122.Strategy for Aboriginal Managed Lands in South Australia (SAMLISA) 2000, Sustainable resourcemanagement: Strategy for Aboriginal managed lands in South Australia, Aboriginal Lands Trust,Adelaide.Sustainable Energy Authority 2004, Sustainable energy info fact sheet, reverse cycle air conditioning,The Sustainable Energy Authority, Victoria, Available at: www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/Reverse_cycle_AC.pdf (Accessed 04 December 2006).Sustainable Energy Development Office 2003, Choosing an air conditioner, Perth, Available at: www1.sedo.energy.wa.gov.au/pages/publications.asp/ Air-Conditioner_64.pdfTaylor N 2003, Eyre Peninsula water supply master plan, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Adelaide.Taylor J and Bell M 2003, Options for benchmarking ABS population estimates for Indigenous committees inQueensland, Discussion Paper 243, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, ANU, Canberra.Taylor J 2004, Social indicators for Aboriginal governance: Insights from the Thamarrurr region, NorthernTerritory Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, ANU, Canberra.Thomas T 2000, ‘Where is rainwater harvesting going?’ Waterlines, vol. 18(3).Travers P and Richardson S 1993a, Living decently: Material well being in Australia, Oxford UniversityPress, Melbourne.144 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Travers P and Richardson S 1993b, Measuring the standard of living, University of Adelaide, Department ofEconomics, Working Paper No 4.Tregenza J and Tregenza E 1998, Anangu Pitjantjatjara services resources management project, AliceSprings, Kutjara Consultants.Twidale CR and Smith DL 1971, ‘A ‘perfect desert’ transformed: The agricultural development of northwesternEyre Peninsula, South Australia’, The Australian Geographer, vol. XI (5), pp. 437–454.Twidale CR, Tyler MJ, and Davies M 1985, Natural history of Eyre Peninsula, Royal Society of SouthAustralia, Adelaide.Victorian Government Department of Human Services 2001, Evaporative coolers: an operation andmaintenance guide for owners, Public Health Division, Victorian Government Department of HumanServices, Melbourne, Available at www.health.vic.gov.au/environment/air/general.htm (Accessed 12October 2006).Water Care, Home water self-audit, Government of South Australia, Available at: www.sawater.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/16F57FEB-6776-430F-91C4-431B03A78024/0/ HWAudit.pdf (Accessed October 2006).Willis E, Pearce M, Jenkin T, Wurst S and McCarthy C 2004, Water supply and use in Aboriginalcommunities in South Australia, Worldwide Online Press, Adelaide, pp. 263.World Bank 1993, ‘The demand for water in rural areas: determinants and policy implications’, The WorldBank research observer, vol. 8(1), pp. 47–70.Yu P and Yu S 1999, ‘Living waters’, Habitat Australia, June, pp. 24–26.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 145

146 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Appendix 1: National framework of principles fordelivering services to Indigenous Australians (NationalWater Initiative, Attachment B)All jurisdictions are committed to achieving better outcomes for Indigenous Australians,improving the delivery of services, building greater opportunities and helping Indigenous familiesand individuals to become self-sufficient. To this end, and in delivering services to Indigenouspeople, COAG agreed to a national framework of principles for delivering services to IndigenousAustralians.Sharing responsibility• Committing to cooperative approaches on policy and service delivery between agencies, atall levels of government and maintaining and strengthening government effort to addressIndigenous disadvantage.• Building partnerships with Indigenous communities and organisations based on sharedresponsibilities and mutual obligations.• Committing to Indigenous participation at all levels and a willingness to engage withrepresentatives, adopting flexible approaches and providing adequate resources to supportcapacity at the local and regional levels.• Committing to cooperation between jurisdictions on native title, consistent withCommonwealth native title legislation.Harnessing the mainstream• Ensuring that Indigenous-specific and mainstream programs and services arecomplementary.• Lifting the performance of programs and services by:- reducing bureaucratic red tape;- increasing flexibility of funding (mainstream and Indigenous-specific) whereverpracticable;- demonstrating improved access for Indigenous people;- maintaining a focus on regional areas and local communities and outcomes; and- identifying and working together on priority issues.• Supporting Indigenous communities to harness the engagement of corporate, nongovernmentand philanthropic sectors.Streamlining service delivery• Delivering services and programmes that are appropriate, coordinated, flexible and avoidduplication:- including fostering opportunities for Indigenous delivered services.• Addressing jurisdictional overlap and rationalising government interaction with Indigenouscommunities:- negotiating bilateral agreements that provide for one level of government havingprimary responsibility for particular service delivery, or where jurisdictions continue tohave overlapping responsibilities, that services would be delivered in accordance withan agreed coherent approach.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 147

• Maximising the effectiveness of action at the local and regional level through whole-ofgovernment(s)responses.• Recognising the need for services to take account of local circumstances and be informedby appropriate consultations and negotiations with local representatives.Establishing transparency and accountability• Strengthening the accountability of governments for the effectiveness of their programs andservices through regular performance review, evaluation and reporting.• Ensuring the accountability of organisations for the government funds that they administeron behalf of Indigenous people.• Tasking the Productivity Commission to continue to measure the effect of the COAGcommitment through the jointly-agreed set of indicators.Developing a learning framework• Sharing information and experience about what is working and what is not.• Striving for best practice in the delivery of services to Indigenous people, families andcommunities.Focussing on priority areas• Tackling agreed priority issues, including those identified in the Overcoming IndigenousDisadvantage Report:- early childhood development and growth; early school engagement and performance,positive childhood and transition to adulthood; substance use and misuse; functionaland resilient families and communities; effective environmental health systems; and,economic participation and development.Within this National Framework appropriate consultation and delivery arrangements will be agreedbetween the Commonwealth and individual States and Territories.148 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Appendix 2: Excerpts (clauses) from The National WaterInitiativeBest practice water pricing and institutional arrangements:outcomes64. The Parties agree to implement water pricing and institutional arrangements which:i) promote economically efficient and sustainable use of:a) water resources;b) water infrastructure assets; andc) government resources devoted to the management of water;ii) ensure sufficient revenue streams to allow efficient delivery of the required services;iii) facilitate the efficient functioning of water markets, including inter-jurisdictional watermarkets, and in both rural and urban settings;iv) give effect to the principles of user-pays and achieve pricing transparency in respect ofwater storage and delivery in irrigation systems and cost recovery for water planning andmanagement;v) avoid perverse or unintended pricing outcomes; andvi) provide appropriate mechanisms for the release of unallocated water.Best practice water pricing and institutional arrangements:actionsWater storage and delivery pricing65. In accordance with NCP commitments, the States and Territories agree to bring into effectpricing policies for water storage and delivery in rural and urban systems that facilitate efficientwater use and trade in water entitlements, including through the use of:i) consumption based pricing;ii) full cost recovery for water services to ensure business viability and avoid monopoly rents,including recovery of environmental externalities, where feasible and practical; andiii) consistency in pricing policies across sectors and jurisdictions where entitlements are ableto be traded.66. In particular, States and Territories agree to the following pricing actions:Rural and regionalv) full cost recovery for all rural surface and groundwater based systems, recognising that therewill be some small community services that will never be economically viable but need to bemaintained to meet social and public health obligations:a) achievement of lower bound pricing for all rural systems in line with existing NCPcommitments;b) continued movement towards upper bound pricing for all rural systems, wherepracticable; andA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 149

c) where full cost recovery is unlikely to be achieved in the long term and a CommunityService Obligation (CSO) is deemed necessary, the size of the subsidy is to be reportedpublicly and, where practicable, jurisdictions to consider alternative managementarrangements aimed at removing the need for an ongoing CSO.Cost recovery for planning and management67. The States and Territories agree to bring into effect consistent approaches to pricing andattributing costs of water planning and management by 2006, involving:i) the identification of all costs associated with water planning and management, includingthe costs of underpinning water markets such as the provision of registers, accounting andmeasurement frameworks and performance monitoring and benchmarking;ii) the identification of the proportion of costs that can be attributed to water access entitlementholders consistent with the principles below:a) charges exclude activities undertaken for the Government (such as policy development,and Ministerial or Parliamentary services); andb) charges are linked as closely as possible to the costs of activities or products.68. The States and Territories agree to report publicly on cost recovery for water planning andmanagement as part of annual reporting requirements, including:i) the total cost of water planning and management; andii) the proportion of the total cost of water planning and management attributed to water accessentitlement holders and the basis upon which this proportion is determined.Investment in new or refurbished infrastructure69. The Parties agree to ensure that proposals for investment in new or refurbished waterinfrastructure continue to be assessed as economically viable and ecologically sustainable prior tothe investment occurring (noting paragraph 66 (v)).Release of unallocated water70. Release of unallocated water will be a matter for States and Territories to determine. Anyrelease of unallocated water should be managed in the context of encouraging the sustainable andefficient use of scarce water resources.71. If a release is justified, generally, it should occur only where alternative ways of meeting waterdemands, such as through water trading, making use of the unused parts of existing entitlements orby increasing water use efficiency, have been fully explored.72. To the extent practicable, releases should occur through market-based mechanisms.Environmental externalities73. The States and Territories agree to:i) continue to manage environmental externalities through a range of regulatory measures (suchas through setting extraction limits in water management plans and by specifying the conditionsfor the use of water in water use licences);ii) continue to examine the feasibility of using market based mechanisms such as pricing toaccount for positive and negative environmental externalities associated with water use; and150 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

iii) implement pricing that includes externalities where found to be feasible.Institutional reform74. The Parties agree that as far as possible, the roles of water resource management, standardsetting and regulatory enforcement and service provision continue to be separated institutionally.Benchmarking efficient performance75. The States and Territories will be required to report independently, publicly, and on anannual basis, benchmarking of pricing and service quality for metropolitan, non-metropolitan andrural water delivery agencies. Such reports will be made on the basis of a nationally consistentframework to be developed by the Parties by 2005, taking account of existing informationcollection including:i) the major metropolitan inter-agency performance and benchmarking system managed by theWater Services Association of Australia;ii) the non-major metropolitan inter-agency performance and benchmarking system managed bythe Australian Water Association ; andiii) the irrigation industry performance monitoring and benchmarking system, currently beingmanaged by the Australian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage.76. Costs of operating the above performance and benchmarking systems are to be met byjurisdictions through recovery of water management costs.Independent pricing regulator77. The Parties agree to use independent bodies to:i) set or review prices, or price setting processes, for water storage and delivery by governmentwater service providers, on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the principles in paragraphs 65to 68 above; andii) publicly review and report on pricing in government and private water service providers toensure that the principles in paragraphs 65 to 68 above are met.Water resource accounting: outcome80. The Parties agree that the outcome of water resource accounting is to ensure that adequatemeasurement, monitoring and reporting systems are in place in all jurisdictions, to support publicand investor confidence in the amount of water being traded, extracted for consumptive use, andrecovered and managed for environmental and other public benefit outcomes.Water resource accounting: actionsBenchmarking of accounting systems81. Recognising that a national framework for comparison of water accounting systems canencourage continuous improvement leading to adoption of best practice, the Parties agree tobenchmark jurisdictional water accounting systems on a national scale by June 2005, including:i) State based water entitlement registering systems;A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 151

ii) water service provider water accounting systems;iii) water service provider water use/delivery efficiency; andiv) jurisdictional/system water and related data bases.Consolidated water accounts82. Recognising that robust water accounting will protect the integrity of the access entitlementsystem, the Parties agree to develop and implement by 2006:i) accounting system standards, particularly where jurisdictions share the resources of riversystems and where water markets are operating;ii) standardised reporting formats to enable ready comparison of water use, compliance againstentitlements and trading information;iii) water resource accounts that can be reconciled annually and aggregated to produce anational water balance, including:a) a water balance covering all significant water use, for all managed water resourcesystems;b) systems to integrate the accounting of groundwater and surface water use where closeinteraction between groundwater aquifers and streamflow exist; andc) consideration of land use change, climate change and other externalities as elements ofthe water balance.83. States and Territories agree to identify by end 2005 situations where close interaction betweengroundwater aquifers and streamflow exist and implement by 2008 systems to integrate theaccounting of groundwater and surface water use.Environmental water accounting84. The Parties agree that principles for environmental water accounting will be developed andapplied in the context of consolidated water accounts in paragraph 82.85. The Parties further agree to develop by mid 2005 and apply by mid 2006:i) a compatible register of new and existing environmental water (consistent with paragraph 35)showing all relevant details of source, location, volume, security, use, environmental outcomessought and type; andii) annual reporting arrangements to include reporting on the environmental water rules,whether or not they were activated in a particular year, the extent to which rules wereimplemented and the overall effectiveness of the use of resources in the context of theenvironmental and other public benefit outcomes sought and achieved.152 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Metering and measuring87. The Parties agree that generally metering should be undertaken on a consistent basis in thefollowing circumstances:i) for categories of entitlements identified in a water planning process as requiring metering;ii) where water access entitlements are traded;iii) in an area where there are disputes over the sharing of available water;iv) where new entitlements are issued; orv) where there is a community demand.88. Recognising that information available from metering needs to be practical, credible andreliable, the Parties agree to develop by 2006 and apply by 2007:i) a national meter specification;ii) national meter standards specifying the installation of meters in conjunction with the meterspecification; andiii) national standards for ancillary data collection systems associated with meters.Reporting89. The Parties agree to develop by mid 2005 and apply national guidelines by 2007 covering theapplication, scale, detail and frequency for open reporting addressing:i) metered water use and associated compliance and enforcement actions;ii) trade outcomes;iii) environmental water releases and management actions; andiv) availability of water access entitlements against the rules for availability and use.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 153

Appendix 3: Aboriginal reference groupMembersAlwin ChongSharon MeagherAlwyn McKenzieJason DownesJohn ChesterDavid SinghAboriginal Health CouncilAboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division, Department of Premier andCabinetAboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division, Department of Premier andCabinetPrimary Industries Research South AustraliaAboriginal Lands TrustAboriginal Lands TrustMeeting datesOctober 2005December 2005February 2006June 2006November 2006Terms of reference for Aboriginal reference groupProject title: Water service delivery and State and Commonwealth water reform objectives– a response from Aboriginal communities in South Australia.This research project is funded by the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division (AARD),Department of Premier and Cabinet, The Commonwealth Department of Family, CommunityServices and Indigenous Affairs (FACSIA), United Water, Flinders University, Desert KnowledgeCRC and CRC Aboriginal Health. This project follows on from a previous study undertakenin SA of the 18 communities that are part of the bilateral essential services agreement betweenthe SA State government and the former ATSIC. While the previous research project focussedon collecting data on the water supply in all 18 of the communities, the current project aims toidentify economically feasible and environmentally sustainable strategies to reduce water costs toAboriginal households in discrete communities. The research team aims to include one communitywhere residents are already paying for their water, one where residents are not paying for waterand one homeland not under the former bilateral agreement. This should provide an idea of therange of factors that need to be considered where current arrangements for water service provisiondiffer, with the aim of providing some suggestions of where uniformity of arrangements might beachieved.Aboriginal reference group: RoleProvide advice and guidance to the research team on cultural, social and political issues arisingfrom conducting the research.Act as an information source, exchange and dissemination group in relation to the project.Identify good research practice in coordination and communication strategies between the researchteam and the various communities and individuals involved.154 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Engender support for the research project: Outwards through the Nunga, Nulla, Yura and AnanguCommunities;Upwards through key personnel within the various departments and agencies engaged or linked tothe project; Co-opt other advice as necessary.Aboriginal reference group: Reporting arrangementsThe Committee will be chaired by Alwyn McKenzie.The Committee will make a quarterly report to the Aboriginal Health Council SA.Aboriginal Reference Group members’ rights to share in publications. Members of the Indigenousreference group have a right to share in research publications similar to the guidelines set down forother members of the research team. These guidelines follow those set out by the British MedicalJournal and are as follows:Individuals seeking to be part of the authorship should make a substantial contribution to:Conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data;Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content;Final approval of the final report to be published.First authorship credit is allocated to the person with whom the idea for the paper originated. Allother names follow in alphabetical order, except where there is clear evidence of considerablecontribution to the development of the paper.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 155

Appendix 4: Fact sheetsFact sheet 1: Continued exploration for another bore, althoughthis may be some distance from NepabunnaRainwatercatchment fromcovered socialmeeting/BBQ areaStorageCommunityBoreStorageUV processingplantBoreLegendExisting infrastructureStorageProposed infrastructureamendmentsRainwatercatchment frombasketball courtUV processingplantFigure 1: Schematic layout of water supply infrastructure at Nepabunna (adapted from Morgan et al. 2003) with a possible additionalbore supplyIf a new supply of groundwater was found some distance from Nepabunna it is possible that a borecould be installed and a pipeline constructed to transport the water to Nepabunna.Currently the bore water is expected to only last another 10 years. Groundwater in the region ispoor in both quality and quantity. If a new groundwater source were found it would probably onlyextend the supply a few more years.The water would probably be of the same type of salinity as the existing groundwater atNepabunna, but it would at least ensure the supply lasts a few more years.If a new groundwater supply were found the water supply would probably have to be piped to andshared with Iga Warta.New costs to DAAREInitial set-up costs:• Installation of bore• Test pumping• Pump• Piping to community156 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Ongoing costs:• Pumping to withdraw groundwater and pump it to the community• Maintenance of equipment and testingExisting costs:For DAARE to supply Nepabunna with water (groundwater pumping, piping and storage, UVtreatment, pumping to buildings) excluding maintenance expenses it costs $5,040 per fortnight.If a rainwater catchment system were built would each household be willing to contribute: $5 per fortnight towards the costs (i.e. less than 2% of AARD’s basic costs)some financial contribution towards the costs, but less than $5, perhaps $………per fortnightsome financial contribution towards the costs, more than $5, perhaps $………per fortnight nothing towards the costs, because……………………………………..A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 157

Fact sheet 2: Greater use of rainwaterRainwatercatchment fromcovered socialmeeting/BBQ areaStorageCommunityBoreStorageUV processingplantBoreLegendExisting infrastructureStorageProposed infrastructureamendmentsRainwatercatchment frombasketball courtUV processingplantFigure 1: Schematic layout of water supply infrastructure at Nepabunna (adapted from Morgan et al. 2003) with a possible additionalrainwater harvesting schemePart 1: Reduce the salinity of the bore water by mixing with rainwater, and extend the life of thegroundwater and the life of household taps and appliancesA new rainwater catchment system could be built over a new social meeting area up on the hillwhere the view is lovely, with BBQ areas and a place for a central bonfire around which people cangather and socialise.The rainwater harvested in this way (is the same as how the basketball catchment works) could bepiped into the bore storage tanks.Mixing the rainwater with the salty bore water will reduce the hardness, salinity and iron contentof the bore water. This would mean that the water piped to each house would be softer so taps,evaporative coolers and boilers will not corrode as quickly.This option would also mean that less water would be taken from the bores, and this would meanthat the bores would last longer. Without this option the bore water is expected to only last another10 years.Part 2: Install rainwater tanks at the community centre and workshed and plumb the rainwater intothe toiletsInstall a 27,000 litre rainwater tank at the community office building and plumb it into the toiletflushing system. The community centre receives a lot of visitors and much water is wasted in toiletflushing. Install dual flush toilets in the community centre.158 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Install a 27,000 litre rainwater tank at the workshop shed and plumb it into the toilet flushingsystem. Install dual flush toilets.This option would also mean that less water would be taken from the bores, and this would meanthat the bores would last longer.Costs to DAARENew costs:• Pump costs = $2,300• Plumbing installation including non-return valves = $4,000• Construction of social meeting area, first-flush devices, debris screen, pipes to storagetanks.Existing costs:For DAARE to supply Nepabunna with water (groundwater pumping, piping and storage, UVtreatment, pumping to buildings) excluding maintenance expenses it costs $5,040 per fortnight.If a rainwater catchment system were built would each household be willing to contribute:$5 per fortnight towards the maintenance costs (i.e. less than 2% of AARD’s basic costs)some financial contribution towards the basic and maintenance costs, but less than $5 perhaps$………per fortnightsome financial contribution towards the basic and maintenance costs, more than $5 perhaps$………per fortnightnothing towards the maintenance, because……………………………………..A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 159

Fact sheet 3: Water efficiencies in the houseAPhoto A above: The full flush on a water-efficient toilet can use 4.5 litres per flush compared to 11litres in some toilets.On average in Australia about 19% of all water used is for toilet flushing. If one assumesNepabunna also uses 19% of all water use for toilet flushing that means around 13,230 litres perday is flushed down the toilet – by installing dual flush toilets throughout Nepabunna can save halfthat amount.Cost of dual flush system $30.BPhoto B above: Installing AAA showerheads offers both spray and massage settings and reduceshousehold water consumption by 20% (or for Nepabunna would save over 70 litres per person perday). It will also result in a lower energy bill as less energy is used (because less hot water is used).Cost of AAA showerhead $15.160 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

CPhoto C: Aerator in kitchen tap reduces water use.Cost of kitchen tap aerator $115.Similar examples from elsewhere in Australia:Half of all the water used in Sydney is what people use inside their houses. It is believed that byputting water saving devices on the taps, showers and toilets inside the houses will save a smallamount of water, around 12%. In Sydney 500,000 houses will be fitted with water saving devices(such as showerheads, taps, toilets) by July 2007, as part of the New South Wales Government’sMetropolitan Water Plan.In Sydney people are being offered a free ‘Do it yourself water saving kit’. The kit, is worth $20,but is given to people for free. It contains water saving devices for household taps that can beeasily installed by the householder, with a resultant saving of around $50 per year on water andenergy bills.Options for Nepabunna:Given the hardness of the water in Nepabunna installing these water-saving devices should go handin hand with shandying the bore water with rainwater to extend the life of the water-saving fittings.Currently the bore water in Nepabunna will only last another 10 years, if you use water-savingshowerheads and dual flush toilets the water saved just from that in one year will extend the life ofone bore between 4 to 5 months.If water-efficient fittings were installed into your home and the community buildings and allthe plumbing services costs were covered (by an industry partner) would you be willing tocontribute: a once-off payment of half of the cost of just the equipment i.e. $20 per household a once-off payment of quarter of the cost of the equipment i.e. $10 per household some financial contribution towards the costs, but less than $10, perhaps $………in total nothing towards the costs, because……………………………………..A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 161

Fact sheet 4: New water statement optionAs one of the options to try and reduce water use in all urban parts of Australia, the new NationalWater Initiative legislation (Clause 66(iv) requires the ‘development of national guidelines forcustomers’ water accounts that provide information on their water use relative to equivalenthouseholds in the community by 2006’. In the proposed accounts system, in Brisbane for examplethe customer is shown their water use, their use in comparison to the same period the previous year,the local suburb average and the metropolitan average for the same period (see Figure 1). In anexample from Yarra Valley Water the account gives the household water consumption and providesa simple graph showing the ‘typical’ and ‘efficient’ water use for the number of people and the sizeof the house (Figure 2).While this clause in the legislation only applies to urban areas how do you feel about a similarprocess occurring in Nepabunna?Figure 1: Brisbane water account showing comparative water use as outlined in the proposed ‘National guidelines for metropolitancustomers’ water accounts’Source: Environment Protection and Heritage Council 2006162 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Yarra Valley Water AccountFold-out, tear-off FlapFront of FlapPanel with comparative dataFigure 2: Yarra Valley Water account showing comparative water use as outlined in the proposed ‘National guidelines for metropolitancustomers’ water accounts’Source: Environment Protection and Heritage Council 2006What do you think of the new COMPARATIVE water account? I would like to know how my water use compares to the average use in Nepabunna andcompared to use in Copley I would NOT like the bill which shows the average use by others, because …… I think this bill system will help reduce water wastage I DO NOT think this bill system will help reduce water wastage, because ……A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 163

Appendix 5: Flinders University ethics documentationgiven to participantsLETTER OF INTRODUCTIONGPO Box 2100Adelaide 5001 AustraliaTelephone: (+61 8) 8201 5608Facsimile: (+61 8) 8201 3646Email: Eileen.Willis@flinders.edu.auMeryl.Pearce@flinders.edu.auDear Name,We are lecturers at Flinders University. Eileen is in the School of Medicine at Flinders Universityand Meryl is in the School of Geography, Population and Environmental Management.We are undertaking research leading to the production of a report on the subject of the impact ofthe National Water Initiative on Aboriginal communities in South Australia. The project is fundedby the Department for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation (DAARE) and the Department ofFamily and Community Services (FACS).The project involves working with three community councils on ways to reduce water consumptionand water costs [specified for those communities that currently pay for water]. The project aimsto provide a response from Aboriginal communities to Government concerning the implicationsof new legislation for Aboriginal communities. In June 2004, in addition to signing the NationalWater Initiative (NWI) Agreement, the Council of Australian Governments (CoAG) agreed to aNational Framework of Principles for Government Service Delivery to Indigenous Australians(CoAG, 2004:Attachment B). These principles are based around sharing responsibility, harnessingthe mainstream, streamlining service delivery, establishing transparency and accountability,developing a learning framework and focusing on priority areas. According to the Council ofAustralian Governments (CoAG, 2004:3), the principles outline a commitment “to Indigenousparticipation at all levels and a willingness to engage with representatives, adopting flexibleapproaches and providing adequate resources to support capacity at the local and regionallevels”. The National Water Initiative also includes the principles of economical viability andenvironmental sustainability for all users of water resources – this means water costs need to bereduced and water use efficiency improved.164 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

We would be most grateful if the community council at [ xxxxxxx community] would be preparedto work with us on this project. It is an action research project which means we would like tovisit the community three times in the next 18 months and talk to the council and other interestedpeople. Our aim is to work with you to produce a report that would go to DAARE outlining theappropriate changes to be made to community houses that would reduce water consumption andwater costs. The second aspect of the project is to record what communities are paying for waterand what strategies they have in place for meeting these costs.Only members of the research team will have access to transcripts. Any information provided willbe treated in the strictest confidence, the names of individuals will not be revealed outside of theresearch team and the confidentiality of the material will be respected and maintained. None ofthe participants would be individually identifiable in the final report or other publications. Thecommunity would of course, be entirely free to discontinue its participation at any time or todecline to answer particular questions.We would talk to community members during our visits to find out what they think is the bestapproach for sustainable technology and cost saving strategies. On our final visit we would bringback a written copy of the draft report for the community to read and make any changes.Any queries you may have concerning this project should be directed to me at the address givenabove or by telephone on 8201-3110, fax 8270-2250 or e-mail Meryl.Pearce@flinders.edu.auThis research project has been approved by the Flinders University Social and BehaviouralResearch Ethics Committee. The Secretary of this Committee can be contacted on 8201-5962, fax8201-2035, e-mail Sandy.Huxtable@flinders.edu.au. The research has also been approved by theAboriginal Health Research Ethics Committee. The Secretary of this Committee can be contactedthrough Mr Alwin Chong on 8132-6730.Thank you for your attention and assistance.Yours sincerelyMeryl PearceSenior LecturerSchool of Geography, Populationand Environmental ManagementEileen WillisSenior LecturerSchool of MedicineDepartment of Palliative and Extended ServicesA response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 165

CONSENT FORM FOR FOCUS GROUPSchool of Geography, Population and Environmental ManagementGPO Box 2100Adelaide 5001 AustraliaTelephone: (+61 8) 8201 5608Facsimile: (+61 8) 8201 3646Email: Eileen.Willis@flinders.edu.auMeryl.Pearce@flinders.edu.auCONSENT FORM FOR FOCUS GROUPI ...............................................................................................................................being over the age of 18 years hereby consent to participate as requested in the participative actionresearch for the National Water Initiative Response project.1. I have read the information provided.Details of procedures and any risks have been explained to my satisfaction.3. I agree to my information and participation being written down.4. I am aware that I should retain a copy of the Information Sheet and Consent Form forfuture reference.5. I understand that:I may not directly benefit from taking part in this research.I am free to withdraw from the project at any time and am free to decline to answer particularquestions.While the information gained in this study will be published as explained, I will not be identified,and individual information will remain confidential.I may ask that the recording/observation be stopped at any time, and that I may withdraw at anytime from the session or the research without disadvantage.166 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

6. I have had the opportunity to discuss taking part in this research with a family member orfriend.Participant’s signature……………………………………Date…………………...I certify that I have explained the study to the volunteer and consider that she/he understands whatis involved and freely consents to participation.Researcher’s signature…………………………………..Date…………………….7. I, the participant whose signature appears below, have read a transcript of myparticipation and agree to its use by the researcher as explained.Participant’s signature……………………………………Date…………………...8. I, the participant whose signature appears below, have read the researcher’s report andagree to the publication of my information as reported.Participant’s signature……………………………………Date…………………...A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 167

Appendix 6: Nepabunna weekly menuBreakfastBacon and eggsOr baked beans or sausagesOr Weetbix or porridgeOr cheese and meatToast and margarineTea or Milo, sugarLunchSandwich – leftovers, breadCheese, tomato, lettuce, cold meatsTeaDinnerEggs/chipsKangaroo meat, damper, rissolesRoast and vegetables (potatoes, carrots, pumpkin, cabbage, cauliflower, frozen peas)Tinned spaghetti, tinned baked beans, spaghetti bolognaise, minceWeekendFruit and vegetablesFriday and Sunday night will be leftovers (whatever is in the fridge)Apples, oranges, pears bought to equivalent of 3 pieces per person per weekVegetables 3 times per week168 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Appendix 7: Nepabunna – Survey of food, healthconsumables and health hardware costsShelf items per fortnightCopley$Adelaide$Leigh Creek$AGHE perfortnight for 2adults, 1 childActualamountsboughtTotal forAdelaide$Total forNepabunna$Weetbix 1kg 4.39 5.09 1 1kg 4.39 5.09Porridge oats 500g Foodland 1.22 1.19 3 3 3.66 3.57Bread wholemeal/ white 3.40 1.79 2.79 11 11 19.69 30.69Spaghetti B&G tin 0.89 0.92 1 4 3.56 3.68Baked beans B&G 0.69 B&G 1.61 4 2.76 6.44Flour B&G SR 2kg 1.79 2.30 1 kg 3 kg 3.45 2.69Marg. 500g Meadow Lea 2.84 Flora 2.76 0.25 0.5 2.84 2.76Cake mix WhiteWings 4.12 Choc 4.59 1 1 4.59 4.12Custard powder 2.35 1.72 1.72 2.35Milk powder Sunshine 400g 4.31 4.91 4.31 4.91Canola/sunflower oil 2L 5.69 B&G 5.94 0.25 1 litre 2.97 2.85Cordial Cottees 2L 3.95 2.99 0.25 1 litre 1.95 1.50Teabags Lipton 50 4.10 2.36 3.43 na 2 pack 4.72 6.86Coffee Nescafe 100g 4.99 100g 6.27 na 1 4.99 6.27Honey 500g (IGA) 1kg 4.49 5.56 0.5 1 2.24 5.56Ice cream Peters 2L 4.29 4.88 0.5 2 litre 4.29 4.88Sugar 1 kg 1.67 CSR 1.23 0.5 0.62 0.83Pasta San Remo 500g 2.35 1.89 2.12 2 2 3.78 4.24Spaghetti tin 0.89 0.92 4 3.56 3.68Milo 450 g 6.20 4.99 750g 8.65 1 4.99 5.10Milo 450 g 450g 5.10Tomato sauce B&G 600 ml 2.57 1.59 2.02 1 1.59 2.02Soup Heinz 420g 420g 1.58Soup Heinz 500g 3.50 500g 1.88 2.08 1.88 2.08Soup mix Continental 375g 1.34 1.93 1.34 1.93Total 89.89 114.10Fruit and vegetables perfortnightCopley$Adelaide$Leigh Creek$AGHE perfortnight for 2adults and 1childActualamountsboughtTotal forAdelaide$Total forNepabunna$Tomatoes 1kg 3.99 4.29 750g 500g 1.98 2.15Potatoes 5kg 6.99 6.99 5 kg 10 kg 14.00 14.00Lettuce 2.49 1.99 1 whole 1 2.49 1.99Carrots 1Kg 1.49 1.49 1 kg 1kg 1.49 1.49Cauliflower 4.99 Cauli tray 4.69 Additional 4.99 4.69Onion 1kg 2.79 1.99 1kg 1kg 2.79 1.99Apples 2kg Royal Gala 4.99 4.49 - 4.99 4kg 2 4.99 4.99Pineapple 440g tinned 1.77 1.79 220 g 1 1.77 1.79Frozen peas Birds Eye 500g 1.49 1.49 500g 500g 1.49 1.49Pumpkin 2kg 2.58 2.49 1.3kg 1kg 1.29 1.24Oranges 3 kg 3.99 2.5kg 3.99 1.75 kg 3kg 3.99 4.78Total $41.27 $40.60A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 169

Meat and dairy perfortnightCopley$Adelaide$Leigh Creek$AGHE perfortnight for 2adults and 1childActualamountsboughtTotal forAdelaide$Total forNepabunna$Milk 3L x 5 2L 3.85 3L 3.75 2L 3.11 3 15 L 18.75 23.40Cheese Coon tasty 500g 5.99 4.33 250g 500g 5.99 4.33Mince 1kg quality 7.99 11.99 750 g 1kg 7.99 11.99Sausages 1kg 4.48 3.37 250g 1kg 4.48 3.37Bacon 250g 2.26 4.17 250g 500g 4.52 8.34Chicken wings/drumstick 1 kg 7.70 7.75 500 g 1kg 7.70 7.75Eggs 1 dozen 3.70 2.29 0.5 2 4.58 7.40Side of lamb/beef or roast 10.50/kg 10.99 kg 6 kg 63.00 65.94Total $117.01 $132.52Summary of food costs Adelaide NepabunnaShelf items 89.89 114.10Fruit and vegetables 41.27 40.60Meat and dairy products 117.01 132.52Total food cost per fortnight $248.17 $287.22Total food cost per week $124.09 $143.61Health consumablesper fortnightCost inAdelaide$Cost at Copley$Cost at LeighCreek$Total forAdelaide$Total forNepabunna$Soap Country Life 5pk 2.69 Colgate 4.00 - 4.15 2.69 4.15Shampoo Pantene (due to hard water) 7.99 Pantene 9.82 7.99 9.82Conditioner Pantene 7.99 9.82 7.99 9.82Toothpaste Mcleans 120g 2.25 Colgate 3.74 2.25 3.74Toilet paper Sorbent 8 pk 4.99 x 2 5.28 x 2 9.98 10.56Tissues Sorbent 2.42 Kleenex 3.60 2.42 3.60Panadol 24 2.89 3.40 2.89 3.40Pine O’ Kleen 2x 3.67 2x Harpic 3.61 7.34 7.22Total $43.55 $52.31170 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Health consumables permonthCost in Adelaide Cost at Copley Cost at LeighCreekTotal forAdelaideTotal forNepabunnaBandaid 100s 6.98 50 for 4.99 6.98 9.98Rubber gloves B&G 0.59 2.76 0.59 2.76Laundry detergent B&G 1kg 2.15 4 kg B&G 5.81 2.15 1.45Dish mop 1.33 1.95 1.33 1.95Dishwash detergent Spree 1 lt 2.59 3.39 2.59 3.39Stayfree reg. pads 20 4.48 2.48 4.48 2.48Deodorant Lynx mens 5.19 6.25 5.19 6.25Razors Bic 5pk 1.99 5 for 2.29 1.99 2.29Shaving foam 250g B&G /IGA 1.56 1.65 1.56 1.65Mortein 350g 10.55 10.55 10.55 10.55Cotton wool balls 150 1.33 1.30 1.33 1.30Gladwrap 30 m 2.49 2.84 2.49 2.84Gladbags 10 2.98 4.20 2.98 4.20Pegs 2.59 1.27 2.59 1.27White King 750 ml 1.91 2.45 1.91 2.45Toothbrush TEK 2.17 4.38 2.17 4.38Total cost per month $50.88 $59.19Total cost per fortnight $25.44 $29.60Summary of health consumables costsAdelaide$Nepabunna$Health consumables - fortnightly items 43.55 52.31Health consumables - monthly items 25.44 29.60Total health consumables cost per fortnight $68.99 $81.91Total health consumables cost per week $34.50 $40.96Health hardware item Retail Price Terms Cost per yearJug Sunbeam cordless filter 1.8 L 34.95 4 yrs 8.75Frypan Sunbeam Electric 54.95 4 yrs 13.73Toaster Sunbeam basic 29.95 4 yrs 7.49Iron Sunbeam 50.00 4 yrs 12.50Microwave LG 32 litre 199.00 4 yrs 49.75TV LG 66 cm pure flat widescreen 699.00 8 yrs 87.38Fridge Westinghouse 202 litre frost-free 499.00 8 yrs 62.38Pillow polyester 11.95 1/yr 11.95Bath towel Elements 16.95 1/yr 16.95Sheet set (fitted) Paddington Lane 59.95 1/ 2 yr 30.00Blanket Elements acrylic 69.95 1/ 2 yr 35.00Tea towels 2.00 3 6.00Mop Oates 5.41 2 10.82Broom Vileda 9.30 9.30Crockery 40.00 4 yrs 10.00Pots and pans 100.00 6 yrs 16.00Glassware 20.00 2 yrs 10.00Total cost per year for health hardware $398.00Total cost per week for health hardware $7.65A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 171

Appendix 8: Comparison of food and healthconsumables costs between Nepabunna and AdelaideFood costsTotal cost for consumable food and non-alcoholic beverages for Nepabunna for 2 adults and onechild under 15: $287.22 per fortnight, $143.61 per week.In calculating the cost of food per week for Nepabunna we have added an additional $15 for schoollunches and trips to town bringing the amount to $158.61.Total cost for Adelaide for 2 adults and one child under 15: $248.17 per fortnight, $124.09 perweek.Based on these figures, Nepabunna residents pay 15.7% more for food than residents in theAdelaide metropolitan area.Percentage of income spent on food by the hypothetical family at Nepabunna: 26.0% (this does notinclude take-away food or school lunches)Health consumablesThe health consumables cost per week for Nepabunna residents is $40.96 versus Adelaidemetropolitan area costs of $34.50.Percentage of income spent on health consumables by the hypothetical family at Nepabunna: 7.4%172 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Appendix 9: Nepabunna water use during two intensiveperiods in 2005 and 2006Summary of household water use in NepabunnaSummary of household water use in NepabunnaHouseUsualno. ofpeopleOctober/November 2005 February/March 2006Average/occasionalvisitorsAveragedaily no. ofpeople (inc.visitors andabsences)*Dailywateruse,litresperperson1 2 to 3 2 or 4 3.2 735l/p/dCommentsFrequentvisitorsUsual no.of peopleAverage/occasionalvisitorsAveragedaily no. ofpeople (inc.visitors andabsences)*Daily wateruse, litresper personComments- - - -2 1 to 3 1 2.2 730 2 1 1246 l/p/d3 2 2 2.9 406 3 2 1964 2 to 3 0 2.6 66 Frequentlyvacant3 0 643 Frequentlyvacant5 5 1 5.4 255 5 1 6556 6 2 6.3 49 Frequentlyvacant0 2 75 Frequentlyvacant7 4 1 4.0 191 5 1 1498 3 1 to 3 3.4 219 3 1 to 3 2659 5 1 to 7 6.3 535 Frequentvisitors5 1 to 7 126 Frequentvisitors10 3 1 or 2 3.1 222 - 1 or 2 -11 2 1 to 3 2.7 386 - 1 to 3 -12 3 1 to 3 4.1 204 Frequentvisitors3 1 to 3 212 Frequentvisitors13 0 0 0.0 0 Vacant 0 0 0 Vacant14 - - - - 2 to 3 - 48515 4 0 4.0 375 4 0 46916 4 0 4.0 145 4 0 66017 0 0 0.0 Minorleak?Vacant 0 0 0 Vacant18 - - - - - - Variable/vacant19 2 - 2.4 1161 - - Variable/vacant20 1 0 1.0 144 Usu absentw/ends1 0 387 Usu absentw/ends21 1 1 or 5 1.4 568 2 1 or 5 61422 1 to 4 0 2.8 317 5 0 65123 1 1 1.0 75 Away Oct/Nov24 1occasion2 1 1261 0.0 0 Vacant 0 0 0 VacantEstimated average water use litres/person/day based on a population estimate of 63357l/p/d56 days 26Septemberto 21November2005Estimated average water use litres/person/day based on a populationestimate of 63435 l/p/d 25 days from27 Februaryto 24 March2006Note: Households have been allocated coded numbers to provide anonymity to residents.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 173

Appendix 10: Yarilena weekly menuBreakfast: WeekdayWeetbix, rice bubbles, milkToast, jam or honey, vegemite, cheese, margarineTea, sugar, milkWeekendBacon and eggsOr baked beans on toastOr tinned spaghetti on toastOr cereal and toastTea, sugar, milkLunchBread with cheese or ham or leftover meatOr toasted cheese and ham, or silversideBread with peanut butter, bread with honeyOr in town – pie/pasty or chips and gravy and drinkTea, sugar, milkDinnerPotato bake, or vegie bake – i.e. cheese, vegies bakedOr tuna casseroleOr spaghetti bolognaiseOr ham or silverside with mashed potatoes, carrots, broccoli or a saladOr roast meat and vegetables on the weekendOr soup made fresh once a weekOr fish fingers or hamburgers (frozen section of supermarket) chicken wingsor sausages and occasionally chops with vegetables.Dessert might be ice creamSnacks in between mealsChildren might eat bread with peanut butteror 2 minute noodlesFruit x 2 per person per dayCordial174 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Appendix 11: Yarilena - Survey of food, healthconsumables and health hardware costsSupermarket shelf items perfortnightCost of itemsat Ceduna$Cost of itemsat Adelaide$AGHE perfortnight for2 adults and2 childrenActualamountsboughtTotal forCeduna$Total forAdelaide$Weetbix 1kg 5.31 4.39 2 2 10.62 8.78Rice Bubbles 850 g 7.77 6.98 1 1 7.77 6.98Bread loaf 2.49 1.79 14 14 34.86 25.06Spaghetti B&G tin 1.08 F/L .89 1 5 5.40 4.45Noodles Maggi 2 min. -5 pk 3.37 2.93 2 2 6.74 5.86Flour B&G SR 2kg 3.40 1.79 1 2 6.80 3.58Rice 2 kg 2.83 2.29 B&G 750g 750g 1.07 .86Biscuits Sao 250g 2.39 2.01 3 3 7.17 6.03BBQ shapes 2.49 1.99 Not listed 4 9.96 7.96Pasta San Remo 500 g 1.59 1.89 750g 1kg 3.18 3.78Biscuits Arnott classic assorted 5.69 4.74 1 2 11.38 9.48Salad dressing Praise 3.31 2.89 Not listed 2 6.62 5.78Mayonnaise Praise 470 g 3.77 3.29 Not listed 1 3.77 3.29Cake mix White Wings choc 5.42 4.12 1 2 10.84 8.24Total $126.18 $100.13Consumable food perfortnightCost of itemsat Ceduna$Cost of itemsat Adelaide$AGHE perfortnight for2 adults and2 childrenActualamountsboughtTotal forCeduna$Total forAdelaide$Jam IXL 3.93 3.39 1 1 3.93 3.39Canola oil 2 L 5.70 5.94 B&G 0.5 1 L 2.85 2.97Salt 125 g 1.61 1.38 100g Not listed 125g 1.61 1.38Cordial Cottees 2 lt 5.30 3.95 0.5 4 L 10.60 7.90Just Juice 2 lt 3.96 3.58 Not listed 4 L 7.92 7.16Teabags Dilmah 200 6.96 6.99 Not listed 100 3.48 3.50Coffee 150g Nescafe blend 8.08 6.48 Not listed 150g 8.08 6.48Mixed herbs McCormicks 1.84 1.69Masterfoodshoney IGA500g 5.08 4.49 Pandabrand1 1 1.84 1.690.5 500g 5.08 4.49Peanut butter Foodland 1litre 4.40 780g B&G 3.78 0.5 1 L 4.40 4.85Ice Cream 4 litre B & G 5.60 4.69 0.5 2 L 2.80 2.35Sugar 2 kg 3.42 CSR 2.46? 0.5 2 kg 3.42 2.46Vegemite 445g 7.60 5.98 Not listed 1 7.60 5.98Crumpets 6pk 1.79 2.39 Not listed 2 3.58 4.78Tomato sauce Foodland 1.79 1.59 Not listed 1 1.79 1.59HP Sauce 3.54 2.46 Not listed 1 3.54 2.46Milo 450g 6.04 4.99 Not listed 450g 6.04 4.99Total $78.56 $68.42A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 175

Meat & dairy per fortnightCost of itemsat Ceduna$Cost of itemsat Adelaide$AGHE perfortnight for2 adults and2 childrenActualamountsboughtTotal forCeduna$Total forAdelaide$Milk 3L 3.75 3.75 8 30.00 30.00Cheese slices B&G 1 kg 7.48 3.29 for 500g 350g 1kg 7.48 6.58Yoghurt Ski 1 Kg 4.89 4.49 750g 2kg 9.78 8.98Mince 1kg 8.99 7.99 quality8.99 prem.1 kg 2 kg 17.98 15.98Sausages 500g 4.10 4.48/kg 500g 1 kg 8.20 4.48Bacon 250g 4.39 2.26 250g 500g 8.78 4.52Silverside 1 kg 9.69 6.98 1 kg 1 kg 9.69 6.98Chicken drumsticks 1kg 5.29 4.69 additional 1kg 5.29 4.69Lamb roast 1.25 kg 10.99 8.30 additional 1.25 kg 10.99 8.30Baked beans B&G .99 .69 1 3 2.97 2.07Tuna Seakist 425g 3.59 2.99 1 2 7.18 5.98Eggs 1 dozen 3.39 2.29 0.75 2 6.78 4.58Chicken 1 cooked 10.00 6.99 2 20.00 13.98Total $145.12 $117.12Fruit & vegetables perfortnightCost of itemsat Ceduna$Cost of itemsat Adelaide$AGHE perfortnight for2 adults and2 childrenActualamountsboughtTotal forCeduna$Total forAdelaide$Tomatoes 1 kg 4.99 3.99 1kg 1 kg 4.99 3.99Potatoes 5 kg 5.49 6.99 7.5 kg 10 kg 10.98 13.98Lettuce 3.39 2.49 1.5 2 6.78 4.98Carrots 1 kg 1.79 1.49 1.8 kg 2 kg 3.58 2.98Broccoli 1 kg 7.99 6.99 additional 500 g 4.00 3.50Cabbage 1 3.49 4.29 1 .5 1 3.49 4.29Soup veg pack 1kg 3.69 2.79 additional 2 kg 7.38 5.58Celery ½ 2.35 1.59 additional 1/2 2.35 1.59Onion 1 kg 2.79 2.79 1.5 kg 1.5 kg 4.19 4.19Cucumber 2.29 1.67 additional 2 4.58 3.34Watermelon 1 kg 1.49 1.49 additional 4 kg 5.96 5.96Apples 1 kg Royal Gala 5.29 4.99 2.5 kg 2.5 kg 13.23 12.48Cauliflower whole 6.99 4.99 additional 1 6.99 4.99Tomatoes large tin 2.41 1.69 1 1 2.41 1.69Apricots tinned 825g 3.94 3.39 440g 440 g 2.10 1.80Frozen peas Birds Eye 500g 2.22 1.49 750g 1 kg 4.44 2.98Beetroot Golden Circle 450 g 1.79 1.45 1 1 1.79 1.45Oranges 1 kg 4.40 3.99 2.3 1 kg 4.40 3.99Bananas 1 kg 13.29 13.99 3 kg 2 or 3 only 3.00 3.20Total $96.64 $86.96Summary of food costsYarilena$Adelaide$Shelf items 126.18 100.13Consumable food 78.56 68.42Meat and dairy products 145.12 117.12Fruit and vegetables 96.64 86.96Total food cost per fortnight 446.50 372.63Total food cost per week $223.25 $186.23176 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Health consumables perfortnightCost of items at Ceduna$Cost of items atAdelaide$Total for Ceduna$Total for Adelaide$Soap Country Life 5 pk 1.89 2.69 1.89 2.69Shampoo IGA 600 ml 3.15 1.99 (Alberto 500 ml) 3.15 1.99Conditioner IGA 600 ml 3.15 1.99 (Alberto 500 ml) 3.15 1.99Toothbrush B & G 0.61 2.17 (TEK) 0.61 2.17Toothpaste McLeans 120 g 2.90 2.25 2.90 2.25Toilet paper Sorbent 8 pk 7.91 x 2 4.99 x 2 15.82 9.98Huggies 72 pk 44.99 35.99(NA Huggies 90s Crawler)Wet Ones 5.30 6.26(NA Huggies Baby Wipes)44.99 35.995.30 6.26Tissues Sorbent 2.42 x 2 2.42 x 2 4.84 4.84Paracetamol B&G 24 1.06 0.79 1.06 0.79Shaving cream Nivea 200 ml 6.02 5.99 6.02 5.99Fly spray Mortein 5.65 4.15 5.65 4.15Repellent Aeroguard roll on 5.92 4.53 5.92 4.53Total $101.30 $83.62Health consumables permonthCost of items at Ceduna$Cost of items atAdelaide$Total for Ceduna$Total for Adelaide$BandAids 100 7.45 6.98 7.45 6.98Dencorub 5.55 4.97 5.55 4.97Rubber gloves B&G 0.76 0.59 0.76 0.59Floor cleaner Pine O’Clean 2.89 3.67 2.89 3.674 in 1Pine O’Clean 500 ml 4.49 3.49 4.49 3.49Laundry detergent B&G 1 kg 2.52 2.15 2.52 2.15Sponge B&G 5 2.31 1.79 2.31 1.79Dish detergent Earth Choice 1.89 1.99 1.89 1.99Pads StayFree reg. 20 6.11 4.48 6.11 4.48Deodorant Nivea 50 ml 3.77 3.28 3.77 3.28Razor Gillette Sensor 4 pk 6.81 2.29 (5 pk BIC) 6.81 2.29Total cost per month $44.55 $35.68Total cost per fortnight $22.28 $17.84Summary of health consumables costsYarilena$Adelaide$Health consumables - fortnightly items 101.30 83.62Health consumables - monthly items 22.28 17.84Total health consumables cost per fortnight 123.58 101.46Total health consumables cost per week $61.79 $50.73A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 177

Health hardware item Cost Cost per yearPots and pans Thrifty Link $100.00 over 4 years 25.00Jug Sunbeam cordless filter 1.8 L $34.95 over 4 years 8.74Frypan Sunbeam electric $49.95 over 4 years 12.49Toasters Sunbeam basic $39.95 over 4 years 9.99Iron Phillips 3100 Elaine $89.95 over 4 years 22.49Microwave LG 32 litre Intellowave Sensor $199.00 over 4 years 49.75Cutlery $20.00 over 2 years 10.00Crockery Riviera 20 pce dinner set $39.95 over 2 years 19.98Glasses $20.00 over 2 years 10.00Plastic cups $10.00 over 2 years 5.00Mop Oates Foodland (FL) $11.12 x 2 (Ad $9.98) 22.24Broom B&G (FL) $5.46 (Ad $5.49) 5.46Dustpan and brush (TL) $3.95 3.95Sabco laundry scrub (TL) $5.95 5.95Fridge new $1000+ over 10 years 100.00Fridge secondhand$200.00 over 2 yearsWashing machine Simpson 8kg top loader $799.00 over 6 years 133.00TV LG 66cm pure flat widescreen $699.00 over 8 years 87.38Pillow polyester $11.95 (2 per year) 23.90Bath towel Elements $16.95 (4 per year) 67.80Sheet set Paddington Lane fitted $59.95 (2 per year) 119.90Blanket Elements acrylic $69.95 over 2 years 34.98Tea towels $2.00 each (4 per year) 8.00Total cost for health hardware per year $786.00Total cost for health hardware per week $15.11178 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Appendix 12: Comparison of food and healthconsumables costs between Yarilena and AdelaideFood costsTotal cost for consumable food and non-alcoholic beverages for Yarilena for 2 adults and 2children under 15: $446.50 per fortnight, $223.25 per week.Total cost for consumable food and non-alcoholic beverages for Adelaide for 2 adults and 2children under 15: $372.63 per fortnight, $186.32 per week.Based on these figures, Yarilena residents pay $36.93 per week or 19.8% more for food thanresidents in Adelaide.Percentage of hypothetical income spent on food and non-alcoholic beverage at Yarilena: 36.6%.This does not include take-away food or school lunches.Yarilena residents spend an additional $15.00 per week for school lunches and snacks in townwhich has not been included in the above calculation. If included, weekly expenditure for food andbeverages totals $238.25. This is 39.1% of the weekly income for the hypothetical family.Health consumablesTotal cost for health consumables for Yarilena residents: $123.58 per fortnight, $61.79 per week.Total cost for the same items in Adelaide: $101.46 per fortnight, $50.73 per week.Yarilena residents pay $11.06 per week or 21.8% more for health consumables than and totals$11.06 more than residents in Adelaide.Percentage of income spent on health consumables by the hypothetical family at Yarilena: 10.1%.A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 179

Appendix 13: Scotdesco weekly menuBreakfastWeetbix, milk, porridge, baked beans, spaghettiEggs, baconToast, tomatoTea, sugar, margarineLunchChops, ham, cheese on bread, tinned meat, tuna, Cup-a-Soup, home made soupOr in town when shopping – take-away $15 to $20 per householdDinnerVegetables and meat e.g. roast with potatoes, pumpkin, broccoli, cauliflower,beansOr chops with vegetablesOr fresh fish such as salmon or tommy, whiting or crayfishOr on weekends especially, wombat or kangaroo or sleepy lizardDessert – ice-cream or custard with tinned peaches or fruit saladFresh fruit – apples, oranges, pears or whatever is in season180 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Appendix 14: Scotdesco hypothetical family 1 – surveyof food, health consumables and health hardware costsSupermarket shelf itemsper fortnightCost of itemsat Ceduna$Cost of itemsat Adelaide$Amounts basedon AGHE perfortnight and 2adultsActualamountsboughtTotal forScotdesco$Total forAdelaide$Weetbix 1 kg 5.31 4.39 1kg 1 kg 5.31 4.39Porridge oats 500 g 1.22 1.22 500g 2 2.44 2.44Bread loaf 2.49 1.79 8 10 24.90 17.90Spaghetti B&G tin 1.08 0.99 1 2 2.16 1.98Baked beans, B&G 0.99 0.69 1 2 1.98 1.38Flour B&G SR 2kg 3.40 1.79 1 2 3.40 1.79Biscuits Sao 250g 2.39 2.01 1 2 4.78 4.02Pasta San Remo 500 g 1.59 1.89 750g 2 3.18 3.78Biscuits Arnott classic assorted 5.69 4.74 1 1 5.69 4.74Salad dressing Praise 3.31 2.89 Not listed 1 3.31 2.89Mayonnaise Praise 470 g 3.77 3.29 Not listed 1 3.77 3.29Chilli sauce classic 250 ml 2.69 1.99 Not listed 1 2.69 1.99Cake mix white choc 5.42 4.12 1 1 5.42 4.12Total 69.03 54.71Meat and dairy productsper fortnightCost of itemsat Ceduna$Cost of itemsat Adelaide$Amounts basedon AGHE perfortnight and 2adultsActualamountsboughtTotal forScotdesco$Total forAdelaide$Milk 3 litres 3.75 3.75 12 litres 15.00 15.00Cheese slices B&G 1 Kg 7.48 3.29 (500g) 500g 1 kg 7.48 6.58Yoghurt Ski 1 kg 4.89 4.49 500g 1 kg 4.89 4.49Bacon 250g 4.39 2.26 250g 2 8.78 4.52Lamb 1 kg Side of 9.00 9.80 5 kg 45.00 49.00Tinned meat - corned beef 340g 3.86 3.75 2 7.72 7.50Tuna Seakist 425g 3.59 2.99 1 2 7.18 5.98Eggs 1 dozen 3.39 2.29 0.5 doz 1 doz 3.39 2.29Total 99.44 95.36A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 181

Fruit and vegetables perfortnightCost of itemsat Ceduna$Cost of itemsat Adelaide$Amounts based onAGHE per fortnightand 2 adultsActualamountsboughtTotal forScotdesco$Total forAdelaide$Tomatoes 1 kg 4.99 3.99 500g 4.99 3.99Potatoes 5 kg 5.49 6.99 5 kg 5.49 6.99Lettuce 3.39 2.49 1 3.39 2.49Carrots 1kg 1.79 1.49 1kg 1.79 1.49Broccoli 1 kg 7.99 6.99 500 g 4.00 3.50Cabbage whole 3.49 4.29 Half 1.75 2.15Soup veg pack 1kg 3.69 2.79 1 3.69 2.79Celery ½ 2.35 1.59 Additional 2.35 1.59Onion 1 kg 2.79 2.79 1 kg 2.79 2.79Cucumber 2.29 1.67 1 2.29 1.67Watermelon 2 kg 1.49 1.49 2 kg 2.98 2.98Apples 2kg royal gala 5.29 4.99 2 kg 5.29 4.99Cauliflower half 6.99 4.99 Additional 6.99 4.99Tomatoes tinned 2.41 1.69 1 2.41 1.69Peaches tinned 825 g 4.06 3.24 1 4.06 3.24Frozen peas Birds Eye 500g 2.22 1.49 750 g 500 g 2.22 1.49Beetroot Golden circle 450 g 1.79 1.45 1 1.79 1.45Oranges 1 kg 4.40 3.99 2.3 4.40 3.99Total 62.67 54.27Consumable food perfortnightCost of itemsat Ceduna$Cost of itemsat Adelaide$Amounts based onAGHE per fortnightand 2 adultsActualamountsboughtTotal forScotdesco$Total forAdelaide$Jam IXL 3.93 3.39 1 1 3.93 3.39Canola oil 2 litre 5.70 5.94 0.5 1 litre 2.85 2.97Salt 125 g 1.61 1.38 Not listed 1.61 1.38Cup-a-soup 75g 1.96 1.79 Not listed 1 1.96 1.79Just Juice 2 litre 3.96 3.58 1 3.96 3.58Teabags Dilmah 100 3.48 3.50 Not listed 1 3.48 3.50Coffee 150g Nescafe blend 8.08 6.48 Not listed 1 8.08 6.48Mixed herbs 1.84 1.69 1 1 1.84 1.69Ice Cream 4 litre 5.60 4.69 0.25 1 litre 1.40 1.17Custard powder 0.99 0.86 0.5 1 0.99 0.86Sugar 1kg 3.42 2.46 0.25 500 g 1.71 1.23Crumpets 6pk 1.79 2.39 1 1.79 2.39Tomato sauce Foodland 1.79 1.59 0.5 .90 .80HP Sauce 3.54 2.46 0.5 1.77 1.23Milo 450g 6.04 4.99 0.5 3.02 2.50Total 39.29 34.96Summary of food costsScotdesco$Adelaide$Shelf items 69.03 54.71Fruit and vegetables 62.67 54.27Meat and dairy products 99.44 95.36Consumable food 39.29 34.96Total food cost per fortnight $270.43 $239.30Total food cost per week $135.22 $119.65182 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Health consumables per fortnightCost of items atCedunaCost of items atAdelaideTotal for Ceduna$Total for Adelaide$Toothbrush B & G 0.61 2.17 (TEK) 0.61 2.17Toothpaste McLeans 120 g 2.90 2.25 2.90 2.25Toilet paper Sorbent 8 pk 7.91 x 2 4.99 x 2 15.82 9.98Tissues Sorbent 2.42 x 2 2.42 x 2 4.84 4.84Paracetamol B&G 24 1.06 0.79 1.06 0.79Fly spray Mortein 5.65 4.15 5.65 4.15Repellent roll on Aeroguard 5.92 4.53 5.92 4.53Total $36.80 $28.71Health consumables per monthCost of items atCedunaCost of items atAdelaideTotal for Ceduna$Total for Adelaide$BandAids 100 7.45 6.98 7.45 6.98Dencorub 5.55 4.97 5.55 4.97Rubber gloves B&G 0.76 0.59 0.76 0.59Floor cleaner Jaysol 1 litre 5.17 3.67 (Pine O’Clean) 5.17 3.67Pine O’Clean 4 in 1 500 ml 4.49 3.49 4.49 3.49Laundry detergent B&G 1 kg 2.52 2.15 2.52 2.15Sponge B&G 5 2.31 1.79 2.31 1.79Dishwashing detergent Earth Choice 1.89 1.99 1.89 1.99Pads StayFree reg. 20 6.11 4.48 6.11 4.48Deodorant Nivea 50 ml 3.77 3.28 3.77 3.28Razor Gillette Sensor 4 pk 6.81 2.29 (5 pk Bic) 6.81 2.29Shampoo IGA 600 ml 3.15 1.99 (Alberto) 3.15 1.99Conditioner IGA 600 ml 3.15 1.99 (Alberto) 3.15 1.99Shaving cream Nivea 200 ml 6.02 6.02 6.02 6.02Soap Country Life 5 pk 1.89 2.69 1.89 2.69Total cost per month $61.04 $48.37Total cost per fortnight $30.52 $24.19Summary of health consumables costsScotdesco$Adelaide$Health consumables - fortnightly items 36.80 28.71Health consumables – monthly items 30.52 24.19Total health consumables cost per fortnight 67.32 52.90Total health consumables cost per week $33.66 $26.45A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlementsDesert Knowledge CRC 183

Appendix 15: Comparison of food and healthconsumables costs between Scotdesco and AdelaideHypothetical family 1: two adults, no childrenFood Health consumables TotalScotdesco $135.22 $33.66 $168.88Adelaide $119.65 $26.45 $146.10Food costsTotal weekly food costs (excluding take-away food) for hypothetical family 1: $135.22Cost of the same food in Adelaide: $119.65Percentage increase in cost of food for hypothetical family 1 at Scotdesco is 13% or $15.57 more than thesame food purchased in Adelaide.Percentage of income spent on food by hypothetical family 1 at Scotdesco: 26.7%.Health consumables costsTotal weekly health consumables costs for hypothetical family 1: $33.66Cost of the same items in Adelaide: $26.45Hypothetical family 2: three adultsFood Health consumables TotalScotdesco $202.83 $50.49 $253.32Adelaide $179.49 $39.69 $219.18Food costsTotal weekly food costs (excluding take-away food) for hypothetical family 2: $202.83Cost of the same food in Adelaide: $179.49Percentage increase in cost of food for hypothetical family 2 at Scotdesco is 13% or $23.34 more than thesame food purchased in Adelaide.Percentage of income spent on food by hypothetical family 2 at Scotdesco: 26.5%Health consumables costsTotal weekly health consumables costs for hypothetical family 2: $50.49Cost of the same items in Adelaide: $39.69Hypothetical family 3: one adultFood Health consumables TotalScotdesco $67.61 $16.83 $84.44Adelaide $59.83 $13.23 $73.06Food costsTotal weekly food costs (excluding take-away food) for hypothetical family 3: $67.61Cost of the same food in Adelaide : $59.83Percentage increase in cost of food for hypothetical family 3 at Scotdesco is 13% or $7.78 more than thesame food purchased in Adelaide.Percentage of income spent on food by hypothetical family 3 at Scotdesco: 26.5%Health consumables costsTotal weekly health consumables costs for hypothetical family 3: $16.83Cost of the same items in Adelaide: $13.23184 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

Appendix 16: Distribution of population in Davenport,February 2007Household No. No. of Bedrooms Total Residents Adults Children

Appendix 17: Davenport weekly menuBreakfast: WeekdayBreakfast cereal – Weetbix, Cornflakes, Rice BubblesToast with butter and vegemiteTea or coffee with milk and sugarOrange juiceEggs and/or baked beans/or tinned spaghettiWeekendToastCerealTea or coffee with milk and sugarLunchSandwich– chicken, tuna, ham or turkey with saladOr sliced cheese and gherkin and salamiOr saladFresh fruit 3 times per week e.g. apple, watermelon or grapesChoc Top ice-cream 1 per weekTea, iced tea, coffeeDinnerRoast lamb with vegetables e.g. potatoes, carrots, broccoli, onions,gravyOr fish with hot chips and saladOr rice with vegetables and Canton sauceOr BBQ and saladOr stir-fry with rice and vegetablesOr spaghetti bolognaise with tomato, capsicum, carrot and garlicGlass cordial, or orange juice and soda or lemonade or beerYoghurt or biscuits or ice cream or trifle and tinned fruit[NB: the cost of soft drinks and beer not included in weekly foodcosts as these are seen as additional to essential weekly costs].186 Desert Knowledge CRC A response to the National Water Initiative fromNepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements

DKCRCPartners